YESTERDAY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 38, 13 February 1878, Page 2

YESTERDAY.

[Before L. Broad, Esq., R.M.] Richmond Hill Company v. O'Halloran. — £21 for calls due. Mr Fell for plaintiffs. Defendant did not appear. Judgment was given for amount, with £3 10s cost. Davis v. Dines.— £3s, balance of account. Mr Fell for plaintiff. Mr Pitt for defendant. After some argument the case was adjourned to Friday to allow defendant's solicitor time lo receive more full instructions. Robert Mackay v. Olson. — Mr Fell for plaintiff. Mr Pitt for defendant. The defendant was examined, and stated he was occupying 100 acres of land at Wangamoa uuder the deferred payment system. Had beeu in occupation fourteen months, but had uot paid any rent yet. He had no stock on the land, nor did he cultivate it; he had no means. Got odd jobs of work occasionally. Had earned about £2. in six months. Had a wife and three children, who lived in a whare on his land. Some gentleman had offered to subscribe half the sum he owed I.Jr Mackay if he would take that as paymenu In full, but he would not. Mr Pitt submitted that no order should bo granted, as plaintiff had failed to show any sufficient reason under Section 8 of the Act. It was a hard case for Olson, who had been ordered by the Justices to pay £20 damages aud costs £4 because his dog accidentally got loose amongst Mr Mackay's sheep. He did not call it a hard case as questioning the propriety of the verdict, but to show that the debt was not incurred wilfully or by fraud, and was a piece of simple misfortune. Mr Fell said Mr Mackay did not desire to act harshly, hut he had lost nearly £100 by the doings of defendant's dog, for which at present he had received simply nothing. Defendant was a strong able bodied man, and ought to be able to earn a good livelihood. He asked the Court to make an order for the payment of the money iv reasonable instalments. His Worship said it must be distinctly understood that imprisonment for debt was absolutely abolished. No one could he locked up, but for one of the grounds stated iv the Act, and the Act, as it was of a penal nature, must de construed strictly. There was certainly no suggestion of fraud in the way this debt was contracted, and therefore ne had to consider only whether the plaintiff had proved that since the judgment the defendant had had the means of paying it, and had not done so. -4-The "Act did not say " or any part thereof," but the amount recovered, and that, he presumed, meant the whole amount. Mr Fell said there had been no ruling of that sort before. His Worship : Perhaps not, because the question has never been raised before, and it might be assumed that the Court has been satisfied in other cases that defendant might if he liked have paid the debt. At any rate, the Court must state in the order the grounds upon which it is made, and the grounds must he such as are stated in tha Act. In this case he could not say that ifc was proved to his satisfaction that the defendant had since the judgment the means to pay and had refused. He could not therefore make the order as prayed, but he would consider whether he had not power under section 10 to make an order for the payment of the judgment in small Instalments, This could stand over until Friday. Harkness v. Knight. — Mr Fell asked the leare of the Conrt to mention a matter in this case, which was heard about twelve months ago, which had probably escaped the attention of the Court, and that was whether the case of extras, valued at £15, was included in his Worship's judgment. He had already advised his client that his Worship's judgment with regard to the machine was doubtless right. His Worship said Mr Fell would perhaps recollect that he asked the same question at the conclusion of the delivery of the judgment, and it was then stated that, iv the opinion of the Court, these fixtures and fittiugs did go with the machine. The case was decided upon the pure law of the matter as it was a question he did not feel at liberty to decide upon ,f equity and good conscience.'' The simple question was, were these thiugs fixtures and did they pass by a conveyance of tho land ? Mr Pitt recollected Mr Fell makiug the enquiry, as stated by his Worship, and the decision of the Court as stated. The matter then dropped.