The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 298, 8 September 1855, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

Saturday, Sept. 8. We have been favoured with a sio-ht of the judgment lately given in chambers by His Honor Mr. Justice Stephen in the case of Brittan v. Simeon,, to which we alluded in a late number of this Journal. The judgment is long and elaborate, and we are bound of cour.-e, corning as it does from the highest authority, to believe it to be correct. That, however, is not the question with which we have to deal; the present question is one of a far more grave and serious character, personally affecting the magistracy, not of this Province alone, but of the whole of New Zealand. It has always been considered that the 17th clause of the Summary Proceedings, and the 14th clause of the Resident [Magistrates' Courts Ordinance, distinctly enact that all decisions in cases of summary proceedings in civil cases shall be final, and that there shall be no appeal from any such decision to any superior court. His Honor Judge Stephen has, however, ruled otherwise; not only has he permitted a case, upon which a judgment has been given in a Resident Magistrate's Court to be again argued before him upon its merits upon an action for trespass brought by the defendant against the.Resident Magistrate for enforcing by distress the costs of the proceedings, but he has inflicted a very heavy fine upon the Magistrate in the shape of costs. It is the duty of Magistrates in this colony to deal with difficult civil cases in which Magistrates in England have no jurisdiction. The law in England provides that no Magistrate shall be punished for any act which;he may perform, unless it shall be proved that he has been actuated by malice, or has exceeded hisjurisdiction ; in New Zealand it is otherwise, a Magistrate may be heavily fined by way of costs if he gives a judgment in which a Judge of the Supreme Court does not concur. And what, we ask, will be the consequence of this ? We conceive that scarcely any,case will arise in which Magistrates will not be intimidated by a threat of action if they dare to act upon their judgment, nor can we suppose that with these facts before them any will be found who will in future undertake the responsibility.