THE Manawatu Times. SATURDAY, DEC. 20, 1879. A GRIEVOUS WRONG RECTIFIED.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 102, 20 December 1879, Page 2

THE Manawatu Times.

SATURDAY, DEC. 20, 1879. A GRIEVOUS WRONG RECTIFIED.

mmlm t <- . s. —i "-« '*_.*' * V " Words ftre things, and a .drop, of "ink falling like dew upon a .thought, produces felmfe which makes thi>u4atnU/'pcriiapa uullitfns-thtak." ->

Thk ca^e of/fru'lor y. Gnrle, he^rd nt the'Dihtrict Court^ on Thursday s"ho\vs the necessity which exists for there being sqme tribunal o£app9al from the, decision of Magistrate's Oo'irts "Wo are quite prepared to admit that juries occasionally return somewhat pincular -verdicts— as iu the cai-e of the unfortunate" man DoLiEitTr— but -happilr ' such instan¥es J are the exception, rather than the rule. In cases adjudicated upon hy juries, tfe '.niQritg^of^ vyhi^h are decided bv such tribunals, the litigants have the' sate^ua'rd ' that shonlVl thene exist indm4ual perspnal influences or fealii^s, the colTectixe judgment is not likely tfo be warped, and 'cbusoquentlv, Ih'ere is a* far greater likelihood of. strict justice-^ and equity being administered. In fc^e case mentioned aboye, 'the plaiuh'fr a stockman, busJ Drri Cublb, o£ Marton, i'or the, sum of ' , £53, beiug the bianco oi wages i pr l

services rendered upon his run. The cas3 was heard some 'months* ago, before Mr. "Waud, the Resident Magistrate, in the Bulls Police Court, aud resulted in a nonsuit wilh cosis. The decision upon that occasion created a great-deal ot Discussion, and the ruling of the Magistrate was very generally spoken of in terms not complimentary to that gentleman. "We, however, were uot present \n .Qourt during the hearing, and consequently refrained from commenting upon the issue, as to do so ype would have" had to act tfpon ex parte statements, a eouuse which we have always studi-' ously ignored. l ? or those reasons we made it our duty to ue present on Thursday when the case came before Judge ILvudcasti/e, %nd. we must say that if the "evidence ad- i duced at the first hearing bore the slightest relation to that given at the District Court, it is a perfect .matter for vyonder to us how the decision by' the Magistrate was adverse to the plaintiff. The facts of the case as related by Dr. Cusle himself, evqn yyhen on hi3 examination in chief, by his own counsel were so strongly in favor of Tajlob, that the decisio.ii arrived at Ijy'the Jury did not entail any great strain of mental' capacity. The plaintiff, had entered into an engagement to s'e'rvethe defendant as stockman for ! a period of four years, at a yearly i salary of £75, with' 1 which princely remuneration he was to feed, 'clothe and house himself. Well, an agreement is an agreement, and althoagh $he conditions are by no means indices of a- -large hearted Tibeuality. upon the part of the, Proctor, stilj the plaintiff was a free agent, and having once voluntarily signed the document had no one but Jiimself to blame if the contract was a hard one. It appeared, in evidence, hoyevetf, that the remuneration was not only low, but several of the conditions imposed in the contract were of such a nature as to be utterly impossible 6f fulfilment,' such _a» asking the plaintiff single-handed to muster mobs of .wild cattle, and requiring them to be branded when there were iio stockyards or other conveniences for the operation. It was proved by a thoroughly independent witness, \ Mr. Hammoxd, o£ Marton, that the services -required of plaintiff by tl/e- 1 -defendant— and for the. non-fulfil-ment of which! tie 'refused td pay TAYLOnhis year's salary — were under the circumstances, wildly impossible ; that itjwas absurd to expect one. man to muster 4 cattle which had been running Wild for years, and that it was ridiculous to expect battle to bebranded without the necessary ap-;^ p-liances — or, as his Honol* aptly put, it — to expect, him to make bricks without straw. ,That ho did not do' so was the CQrpus delicti in the'eyps r "-of his employer,, whq refused tq pay the balance of his first year's wages, amounting to £55. "\yhen in the ; witness box the defendant strove hard to depreciate the services 'of Ta.xi.oti, whom he stigmatised as: vvorjlhless and incompetent, ye^ in the face of such an assertion he had the impudence to admit that even after the plaiutift had dragged 'him to court he tiad striven hard to again secure his services. Dr. Guiilid is a prominent and wealthy resident of' Marton, and the Resident Magistrate also resides in that town, and certainly if the evidence at the two "hearings Was in the slightest degree similar, there is -in our, Opinion some grounds -for the eommon remark that local and other influences are. not with out ..their weight iu Magistrate's. Courts.' Q?he sitting of thd Distrio^ Court has been a long, 'tedious, a'nd, were it not for the case uuder review, a particularly barren one, but we, f eel j satisfied that neither jury nor wit- j nesses wili regret the lime r devoted to redressing what' was allowed by ihose who heard the, evidence to be* the most monstrous piebe of tyranny perpetrated by a rich over a poor man in the name of the justice, and with the sanction of the la,\y.