MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 66, 17 March 1880, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[Before H. E. Curtis and P. Donald, Esos., J.J.P.] Harris v. Osborne.— ActioD to recover £3, balance of wages due. Mr Bunny appeared for the plaintiff, who; he said, had been engaged by defendant for ten days at §s per day to wat at the Rifle Association meeting. The catering, however, had not proved so successful as was expected, and plaintiff was discharged after beiug there 33; days. Owirig to this engagement he had lost the opportunity of securing the marking at the pool. B. Osborne stated that he had engaged his servants by the day only, and not for any specified term, and finding that he did nofc want them he paid off four of them on the Thursday. He was positive that he had not mentioned any time and he had only acted in accordance with the custom of the trade. Judgment for plaintiff for £2 16s and costs £1 14s. Wagstafl v. E. Atkinson. — Action to recover £11 7s 6d, wages alleged to be due. Mr Percy Adams appeared for the plaintiff. Defendant said that his lawyer, Mr Pitt, was not present but he was prepared to defend himself. J. Wagstafl:: Plaintiff engaged a horse and driver from me at 13s a day, on the Bellgrove extension, aud the amount claimed is due. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr Atkinson : Are you honorably through the Bankruptcy Court yet ? The Chairman: That is a question you are not entitled to ask. Mr Bunny: Might I suggest, Sir, as a friend of the Court, that it is both a relevant and an important question, as, if the plaintiff has not received his discharge^ it is the trustee who alone can sue. The Chairman: Yes; that is so. You must answer the question, witness. Witness : Ido not think I have received my discbarge. The Chairman: In dismissing the case we would suggest that there seems a dotibt whether the right man is beiDg sued. Mr Adams : But surely your Worships are not going to dismiss the case thus prematurely. (To the witness.) How long is it since you became a bankrupt ? Witness : Nearly. five years. Mr Adams : Exactly. Then three years having expired siuca his bankruptcy he is entitled to sue. Hereupon a long discussion ensued, Mr Bunny pointing out that although the Act of 1876 provided that if no order of discharge had been made within three ynirs the debtor was deemed to be absolutely discharged, the repeal clause stated that all estates under the operation of former Acts were to be subject to their provisions, that the former Acts were silent upon this particular matter, ahd that the plaintiff had bepn a bankrupt under those Acts. The Bench thereupon ruled that the plaintiff must have received his discharge in order to be able to sue. The witness, upon being further questioned said that he did not know whether he had received bis discharge or not. He had attended two meetings of his creditors, and then the whole thing seemed to lapse. Mr Bunny : I have now been instructed to act for the defendant, and I should like to ask the plaintiff whether some months ago I did not apply to him on behalf of Mr Hooper for money, and was told that his estate was in bankruptcy. Witness : Yes. I think I referred you to Mr Pitt and Mr Stantou. By the Bench : Have you received your discharge siueo Mr Bunny applied to you for money ? No. The Chairman : We must nonsuit the plaintiff. Mr Adams : May I ask on what grouud ? The Chairman : Ou the ground that, not having received his discharge, he is not entitled to sue. Mr Adams said that he should give notice of appeal. Waters v. O. Haase— Action to recover £1 5s for boots supplied. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. * Duncan v. Newberry — Plaintiff sued for £5 16s for rent, for which amount with costs he obtained judgment. Elett v. Barraclough — Action to recover 14. rates. Judgment for amount claimed and costs.