Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 124, 4 July 1868, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM — Monday, June 29, 1868. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.] E. WILSON V. T. GWILLIM. Mr. Nelson acted for defendant. The plaintiff being a Maori, and the Provincial Interpreter being absent, Mr. Turton volunteered to interpret in the case. Edward Wilson was a ferryman at the Wakamarina. He produced an agreement. Mr. Nelson objected to the admission of the agreement, from its having only a penny stamp on it. Witness and three more Maories agreed that Gwillim should take the land that he might run sheep on it. He objected to the terms being stated as they were on the agreement. The Bench ruled to take evidence whether strictly legal or not. Mr. Nelson considered it was not right to take oral evidence in reference to land. The Bench cited a clause in the Resident Magistrates Act, which permitted evidence to be taken in reference to the case upon equity. The Maori was not understood to be acquainted with the laws. Witness consented to Gwillim’s using the land for 5 years at £3 a-year. The rent was to be paid in June of each year —the 1st of June, 1867, and the 1st of June, 1868. Witness had asked defendant for payment, and he said he would not pay a sixpence. He had not paid. Mr. Nelson again objected, submitting that it was not equity to take evidence, when it was a fundamental principle of law for everyone, that oral evidence should not be taken when there was documentary; and before the document could be received it was necessary that £5, &c., should be paid upon it, for neglect of sufficient stamping. The Bench said it was an extraordinary defence to take up, when the defendant had written the document himself.

Mr. Nelson. The man had really no title to the land, and yet he had to pay for it. The Bench admitted it..

Horo (a native) was present when the agreement was made, but he did not quite know what was said. Gwillim had paid for the previous year, but not for this year. It was due on the 1st day of June. Mr. Nelson applied for leave to appeal, but the Bench ruled there was no appeal under £5. He then asked that a note should he taken of an appeal being asked for and refused, and he would apply to the Supreme Court for a prohibition.

The Bench agreed to take a note. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, for £3, and £2 11s. costs. M. HENSESV V. R. MATTHEWS. Plaintiff was a laborer, and ho was engaged by defendant for a day to load his craft, at 7s. a day and his food. Defendant was to find the food. He and his mates had their breakfasts at Hathaway’s before defendant came. When he came it was close to 10 o’clock, and he said he could not afford to pay for their tucker at Hathaway’s. He had brought their dinner with him. They did not go to work, because he would not pay for their breakfasts and tea. Defendant then went and got other hands. By the Bench : There was no agreement that they should get their meals at Hathaway’s John M‘Laugblin was one of the party. They agreed for 7s. a day, and their food. No mention was made where they would get their food. He understood that he was to get 3 meals for his day’s work, and that defendant would provide them. When defendant came down it was between 9 and 10 o’clock, and he said he could not pay for their grub at Hathaway’s, as that would make it 13s. a day. He said he had brought their dinner.

Defendant said he agreed to give the men what Mr. Hathaway gave, which was 7s. and their food. On the day in question he started for the Ferry soon after he had his breakfast, taking with him a loaf, a leg of mutton, and sonic tea and sugar for the men. He did not promise to give them breakfast. There was food enough for dinner and tea and more. He said to them he could not pay for their food at Hathaway’s, and when they refused to commence work, he offered to give them 1s. 3d. an hour, as Mr. Henderson did, and they could get their food for themselves, but they would not hear of anything but his paying for their food at Hathaway’s. Judgment for defendant, and 4s. costs. D. SCOTT V. R. MATTHEWS. This case was similar to the preceding, and as plaintiff declined to withdraw his case, judgment was given as in the preceding, 10s. to be allowed defendant for loss of time. JOHN ROBINSON V. FRED. WOLLER. Mr. Nelson acted for plaintiff; Mr. Turton for defendant. This was a claim for half-a-year’s rent (£30), for a building in the Wairau, and for certain chattels of the value of £l2 10s. The lease had been surrendered, but these goods had not been returned. John Robinson gave his evidence upon the indebtedness. (By Mr. Turton: He did not turn defendant out; defendant gave the lease up in March last.) Mr. Turton applied for a nonsuit, as plaintiff entered into possession without getting the rent. If the rent was unpaid 21 days, it was lawful for Mr. Robinson to re-enter upon the land ; but the leases did not say, without prejudicing the right of Mr. Robinson in respect of the lease. There was no contemplation that the rent should be paid, as there had been no reservation clause put in the deed. They had forfeited payment by their own act. Mr. Nelson agreed for plaintiff to strike out the items of swingle-tree and harness, about which there was a dispute. Mr. Turton held that plaintiff should have sued defendant before he re-entered ; then the case would have been different. Mr. Nelson argued that the rent was due before re-entry, and by taking possession plaintiff exonerated from the lease but not the rent then due. The re-entry was not forcible, but by mutual agreement. The Bench reserved its decision till next Court day, to consider Mr. Turton’s objection. TOM PAEMER V. VINCENT HEWITT. Mr. Turton appeared for plaintiff. This was an action to recover £l2, the value of a heifer and calf. Tom Palmer deposed that in 1862 he agreed with defendant to exchange with him a cow and a calf for an heifer and calf and £4. The agreement signed by Mr. Hewitt was produced. Defendant paid the £4 in June, 1863. He never delivered the heifer and calf. A month or two afterwards he said he had a heifer and calf outside the house (the Waihopai Accomodation House), which he offered him, but he had an idea they belonged to Mr. M'Iver, and refused to take them. He had been told that they belonged to M'Iver, and as defendant was driving them home, M'Iver took them from him as they went through Henwick. Defendant had never paid. Vincent Hewitt said he did not recollect the transaction, nor paying £4, but he could not aver the circumstances did not take place. .. Judgment for plaintiff, £l2, with'£1-18s costs. ROBINSON BROS, V. W. NORGROVE. Judgment for plaintiff, £11 18s. 10d., and 17s. costs.

Mr. Nelson and Mr. Turton submitted to the Beach a desire that, if it could be managed, cases in which legal assistance was engaged, might be heard first, as it would be a great convenience to the legal profession. The Magistrate said he had no objection to make a regulation, as he was quite willing to consult the convenience of the bar, but information of the cases must be supplied beforehand. This concluded the business of the Court.