RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 25, 29 January 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before L. Bkoad, Esq., R.M.] Richmond v. Stagg. Action to recover £20 19s, for sheep supplied. Mr Fell who appeared for the plaintiff' said that this was the second summons, the first, which was issued some months since, having been withdrawn on the understanding that the defendant's book debts were to be assigned to the creditors. These, however, had not been collected. Judgment for amount claimed and costs £3 17s. ; Hunter v. Wolf. This action, which was brought to recover £80 for the use and occupation of certain lands in the Buller,was heard some day 3 ago, and judgment was reserved. This was given to-day, and was as follows: — In this case the defendant had the use and occupation of the residence and a run for his cattle. There is no evidence but his own assertion that he was to have the place rent free, and this ia denied by the plaintiff. There is, under all circumstances, an unfulfilled contract to pay a fair reasonable sum for the use and occupation, and the onus is on the defendant to prove that he was exempted from any such payment. I have had some little difficulty in estimating the amount plaintiff ought to recover. On the whole I think £20 will be a fair sum. Judgment accordingly with costs £5 2s. Mr Acton Adams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Fell for the defendant. The Yacht Case. Richardson v. Everett, Treasurer to the Jnterprovincial Regalia Committee: Action to recover £30 and the Cup offered as a prige for the yacht race at the recent regatta, : , .. -,-,, ;; His Worship said that before the case commenced he must inform them that he had seen his name in print as a member of the Regatta Committee, but that he had not attended any of the meetings or taken* anypart iv any of the arrangements. He thought it right, however, to mention this in case either of the parties might object to his | jurisdiction. Counsel on both sides having I stated that they had no objection Mr Fell said that the plaintiff was the owner of the yacht Gapnet, who had entered her for a certain raGfi, for which the prise was £30 aud a Silver Cup. He had paid the entrance money, amounting to 30s, had started together with two other boats, and came in first. It had not been alleged that there had been any shortcoming on the part of Mr Richardson, who had offered to refer the matter to the editor of the Field or any other recognised sporting authority, but this' offer had not been accepted, and he had therefore been compelled to adopt the unpleasant course of bringing an action at law to recover the prize to which he was entitled. Ralph Richardson:- 1 am the owner of the yacht'Gannet, which I entered for the yacht race advertised by the luterpro vincial Regatta Committee. The course was indicated to me by the starter, Mr Garrard. f completed the course, complied with ell the conditions, and came in first, and was declared the winner by the umpire as I passed the buoy. Neither of the other two boats completed the course. I have demanded the money and cup, which have been refused. Cross-examined: Mr Nay lor was in the umpire's boat, and declared me the wiuner. I saw the other boats come in. The Secret, did no); go round the winning buoy. I was about 300 yards ahead of her. lam a member of the General arid Sailing Committees, but there was a special agreement that I was not to sit on the latter in any matters connected with the yacht race. I know that one of the rules was that in all protests the decision of the Committee was to be final. I Sfcnow the Secret went ashore. I heard that the owner had to shij?t gome of his ballast. I was told by one of those on b/oard that sfye was aground nearly 25 minutes. § ne was» 8£ minutes ahead of me when she went aground. This was at the end o£ the first round, which was completed about 4 o'clock. She was to aljlow me l§mins 25secs. lam aware that a protest was lodged by the owners of the Secret' with' the Sailing Conimjttee. I was called to give evidence. I stated then that I did not consider the course a fair one, and I am still of the iiame opinion. The Committee decided that the race was tQ be sailed again. I lodged no protest .against the Secret. The Committee had not dts* qualified her. I don't know that Mr Wadmau was the umpire. Re-examined: The decision of the Committee was in effect to deprive me of the prize, a3 the other boats could not have sailed again owing to their not having com-, pleted the course. I said the course was an unfair one as it was too long. Ifc was advertised to be 24* miles, and I sailed 43 miles. Had it been advertised as the latter distance

I should have received an allowance of ijalf v anhour-insteadof.ls minutes. I thought the course -was unfair to both of i also:? said that the sands would be, rather close;for\ the Secret. Had she; been ,p"roji)erly piloted she would notjhave gohe agrduhd. 4 I sounded constantly an&neyerjhadaeas than 13 feet. % ; T4iis^blosedtnecase^for|the plaint^ A \ Mr Pitt argued- that the plaintiff rifoist be nonsuited, as, being a member of the Committee, he could not maintain an action against it. He claimed £30 and a Cup, and sued Mr Everett, the Treasurer, to recover ,<thenv But : the Committee; was .'not a coe-, Iporate bodyfa.nd, had the action been brought 5 in the Supreme Court, (that : -all 'ttie propdir persons had not been joined as defendants the defence might have been set ud), as each was liable,^ and were, the wh6le *C6iri- ' mittee, joined Mr Richardson must appear as defendant as well as plaintiff. (Mr Pitt here quoted from Dicey on Parties to Actions to show that an individual could not be -plaintiff and defendant in the same case.) The con- , tract upon which the action was based wa3 that the 1 Committee had agreed to give a prize for a certain race, ,'arid the plaintiff Hoeing a member of. the Committee was a corcontractor with 'them. Another objection i was that before ; the plaintiff could recover he 'must show affirmatively that a decision had been given by the Committee in his faivdr, or that no decision had been .'arrived at; : But -there had been a decision, and that had been :■ against him. (Number of cases quoted.) It was one of the conditions that the decision of the Committee was. to be final, and this was a question on which they were perfectly competent- to decide, as the protest lodged • by the Secret was against the prize being awarded to anyone, > and therefore was virtually against Richardson. . The decision, which according to the published conditions was to be final, was that the prize should not be awarded but the race be sailedj'over again. The plaintiff had- noi sailed again and consequently could not claim the. prize. As to the merits of the case Mr Richardson" had shown that at the end of the first round, when she grounded, the Secret was more than half the time she had to allow ahead, and had admitted that the. course was* an uufeir one. With- regard to the Secret not completing the course, she was perfectly justified in not doing so, seeing that there. was a fair ground - for the protest jwhich the owner* had determined to make: ; ; . Mr Fell said, that the argument that the decision of ' the Committee was to be final wag soon disposed of, as it could be shown that this was a matter in which they had no jurisdiction. The protests that they were to decide were such as might arise out of errors of judgment, collisions, or breaches of sailing rules, but here there were no complaints against Mr Richardson; the onlriaulfc thafc was alleged was on the part of the Committee. The quarrel was not between the Secret and; the Gannet, but the Secret and the Sailing Committee, therefore it was outside their province, to decide. The question. for them - to decide was, as it appeared to him,- whether they had not been so far in the wrong as to '. justify them in awarding a second 1 prize. Tbdy admitted that they^had bungled, but it_ was; not for them to say that because of their mistake the Gannet was not entitled to the prize. It was not a case at all for the Sailing Committee^ but for the General Committee to decide. In all the case 3 quoted the disputes had been between the competing parties, but here the Committee was a party to the muddle, and could not be a judge in their own cause. He would defy the oiher side to quote any analogous case, as he be- . lieved the present one to be without precedent. . , . His Worship, in giving judgment, said that the objection raised that the plaintiff ought to have had a decision in his favor might hold good in cases of actions for the recovery of money had and received; hut not where there was a speqial contract. With regard to the question of the Committee's decisidu being flnat, it would be observed that in. all the cases cited, the judges, when j delivering judgment, had qualified their statements by saying unless stewards or Committees were disqualified or incompetent to decide, showing thatlt, was .held that such might occur •and: if there was one -case more than another in -which' sucH disqualification; or incompetency existed, it was when they were called upon to be judgea in their own caused Here the- protest was nnmistakeably* . and distinctly against the ' { Committee for ' laying out a course on which there was not sufficient Jwkter, and^ifc certainly was incompetent for. them to say . to IMr Richardson, Because* we have been wrong we mean to compel you to sail the iace" again. If it could; be proved that the 6anhet had not complied with the prescribed! conditions it would be a differenfmatter, but where it was clearly shown that, she had completed, tuo course and come in first it w&s not com- * peteftt for the Committee to entertain the protest entered by the owners of the Secret. He should therefore overrule this objection also, and the judgment would he for the plaintiff for £30 and costs £5, and an order fdr the Clip to be given up within three days. ■ " ■'•■ ■ ;. ■- . , . -Mr Pitt intimated that the Committee would probably appeal. .. .... -r . „