RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5492, 2 November 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, November 1, (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) P. Mclntyre v. E. Baker. —Claim £7l sa. This was an action for damages against the defendant, who is chief cleric of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, for alleged neglect on his part in obtaining the signature of the Resident Magistrate to a distress warrant. Mr. Fitzherbert appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ollivier appeared for the defendant. The facts connected with this case have already been published by us. After Mr, Fitzherbert had opened hia case, ,Mr. Ollivier, in defence, contended that the plaintiff must be nonsuited. He maintained that the notice jf action did not give sufficient particulars, aud also that there was no such duty imposed on the clerk as that specified in the notice, viz., the issuing of distress warrants. The learned counsel quoted cases in proof of his statement, aud submitted that from hia reading of the 59th section of the Magistrates Act it was clear the magistrate was the only one who could issue the warrant. Mr. Fitzherbert, replying, said that there had been frequently great neglect in the Court, aud that it had been impossible to bring the blame home to anyone. The magistrate who used to sit on the bench would bo guilty of neglect, and would lay the blame on the Clerk of the Court, or vice verm, Mr. Mansford: Say what you like about me, but do not say anything about Mr. Crawford. Mr. Fitzherbert then continued : There had been, he said, continual negligence in connection with this case. Mclutyro had lost £6O by defendant’s neglect, and ho was determined to spend every penny ho had to recover the amount. His Worship overruled the objections raised by Mr. Ollivier, aud observed that he was sorry they had been raised, as ho would much sooner have heard the case tried on its merits. H. W. Hope, Mr. Fifzherbert’s clerk, deposed that he had applied to the defendant for a distress warrant, who admitted that the fault of the delay was his (defendant’s). G. Frank, one of the clerks of the Magistrate’s Court, stated that Baker, the Clerk of the Court, endeavored to obtain Mr. Mausford’s signature, but one of the bailiffs said, “ It is too late now ; we can't put a bailiff in after sundown.” Mr. Baker then replied, “Then we will have to leave it until to-morrow morning.” His Worship said were he an independent Judge sitting on an independent case he would grant a nonsuit, but he would not like it to be said that by any action of his, or by means of any technicality, he was screening the conduct of an officer of the Court. The defendant was then put in the box, but his evidence was similar to that given by Frank. His Worship reserved judgment.