RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5455, 20 September 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, Sewemuer 19. (Before T. A. Mausford, Esq., E.M.) DRUNKENNESS. ' Two inebriates were dealt with in the usual manner. ASSAULT. William 11, Pivth was charged on remand with assaulting his wife, Matilda Pirth. It will be remembered that the case was remanded for the production of fresh evidence. - After the case had been concluded, Inspector Atcheson remarked that the defendant made use of threatening language to his wife, stating that ho ,f would shoot her like a cat, and give her two black-eyes instead of one.” This was said last Court-day. He Worship said that he considered the assault a most brutal and unmanly one, and sentenced him to four weeks’ imprisonment with hard labor, and to be bound over in his own recognisances [of £2O, and two sureties of £lO, to keep the peace for six mouths. CIVIL CASES. In the following cases judgments were given for the plaintiffs for the amounts claimed : G. Smith v. J. J. Beatty; claim, £IOO.—P. K. Watty v. F. W. Buck ; claim, £lo.—Mace and Arkeil v. J. Young ; claim, £l2 2s.—W, Brown v. Lottkowitz; claim, £3 os. 6d. —W. Clark y. C. Norris; claim, £2 4 s.—C. Simmends v. G. Hams; claim, £1 Is.—Same v. T. Bussell; claim, £5 Is.—Kirkcaldie and Stains v. G. Harris ; claim, £2 13s. 6d. : —R. Lloyd v. W. Dawson ; claim, £lB 2s. 9J. This was a judgment summons, and the defendant was ordered to 'pay the amount claimed on or before 17th October, or in default eight weeks’ imprisonment. THE CASE AGAINST THE CLERK OP THE COURT. P. Mcfntyro v. E. Baker ; claim, £7l ss. Mr. Pitzherbert appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Oilivier for the defendant. Mr. Pitzherbert, in opening his case, said the facts were briefly as. follows We are sneing for damages for £7l ss. through the negligence of the service of a distress warrant. Judgment was given in the first place for £62 10s. and costs, £G 12s. On the 26th August the plaintiff obtained the judgment. Three days’ grace was given by your Worship, to allow the defendant to appeal. He did not do so. On the following Thursday (August 29) I was instructed to take out a distress warrant. I same to the Court and I think addressed myself to Mr. Prank, one of the under-clerks.-Baker, the clerk, was present, and turning to Mr. Prank, handed him a form, saying, “ Mark it.” I asked Baker what he meant by marking ' it, and be said it was usual to nlark the forma to show priority. Whether Mr. Frank was present or not lam not prepared to speak accurately ; bat this I am' positive of, that Mr. Baker was present. I cannot say what the defence is—probably that there bad been no negligence. - Should Mr. Baker say that he knew nothing about it on that occasion, my clerk can prove that he spoke personally to him on .a subsequent occasion. The bai iff was not given this warrant until the following Monday,, when they found that the goods had been removed fjmm the house, and that Mt'Ear'ane liad tiled his

schedule. Had the warrant been issued on the Thursday, or the following Saturday before 12 o’clock. McFariane would have paid the whole amount, and this fact X shall lana himaelf. So far as Baker’s being liable for the actions of his clerk is concerned there is no doubt. [Mr.' Fitzherbert then quoted several Acts showing that the clerk was responsible.] In this case Baker might say that it is Frank's fault, X will submit, however, that the law is quite clear on that point. Baker is responsible for Frank's acts. Frank cannot issue.'a distress warrant, and ho has no power to do so. As to the defence, as I said before, I have no idea what it is. Your Worship has never asked. .

His Worship : I should have asked Mr. Ollivior, but at the time I waS about doing so yeu were quoting different Acts, and 1C did not uke to disturb you. . Mr. Ollivier : Our defence is, wo deny any negligence, and contend that notice of action should have been given. Mr. Fitzherbert-: Mr. Baker said distinctly that he would waive all formality. His Worship said that the objection was a fatal one. Notice should have been given.

Mr. Fitzherbert: Then, your Worship, I shall ask for a nonsuit, and take out a fresh summons in a month’s time. I contend that such a defeifoe only aggravates the case. It will allow Baker another month to collect the money. Plaintiff nonsuited.