Original Correspondence.

New Zealander, Volume 5, Issue 402, 20 February 1850, Page 3

Original Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Nexo-Zealunder. Sir — Your report of the case " Forsytk v. Orms&y" furnishes a stiong illustration of the evils of extraordinary jurisdiction in our Courts of Law. A ci*e, involving (he valiclitv of a title to land, has beeu tried in the Retident Magistrate's Court, ami the Bench entertained the plea of the Plaintiff, while they refused to consider the vuliility of his title, the only point on which the Pefendaut could ground his own justification. The general adoption of such a precedent would amount to a gratuitous present to the Plaintiff, in sill such cases, of the judgment of the Court, inasmuch a-, the Defendant is judicially placed, disarmed and fettered, at the complete mercy of hin opponentMagisterial Courts in England, and in the other colonies., — and even the old county Cour's of New Zealand, where a Bnrrislci or Solicitor must preside, and which has the power of transporting fur seven years, are expressly precluded fiom enteiuimng questions relating to the title to r°al pioperty. The reason is obvious. How is it possible con gisten'ly and reasonably to dispose of cases when you are illegally incompetent to decide upon the only, or at lea3t the chief, giound of defence which can be set up Bu', putting aside the expediency, the legality of entertaining sue b cases, even in our Resident Magistrate's Court, admits of serious que'lun.

Tlie Art limits the power of ike Resident Magittrate- - to all civil cases, where the Defendant shall reside beyond the distance of ten mile* from any Court of Rf quests— thus clearly implying that the civil cases to he brought before that officer must be of iht< same nature, as those which a Com t of Requests could entertain. Now, the Court of Request's Act express'y withholds from the jurisdiction of that Court cages of the kind referred to ; surely theu its substitute is equally incompetent. This point does not seem fo have been taken by the learned counsel, but, however the )e°rnl question may be, the common sense question of the justice of such a procedure is easily answered. I remain, sir, Sec-, A Disinterested Observer.