RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume 1, Issue 24, 3 July 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

MONTHLY SITTING. Thursday, July 1. (Before His Honor Judge Kenny.) Previous to the commencement of business, the Clerk read a letter from Major Turner, addressed to Judge Kenny, asking that gentleman to conduct the following case, as he had been subpoenaed as a witness, and Captain Wray, the only other J.P., residing in the. district, was absent. W. Cowern (Secretary Patea Education Board) v Buckly.

This was an action to recover the sum of £2 4s 6d, being the amount of a distress warrant which defendant had been entrusted (as bailiff) to put into execution upon the goods of a pedler, and, after seizing the said goods, had surrendered possession to the defendant, thereby depriving the Board from recovering its judgment. Mr Fitzherbert appeared for the defendant, and Mr Hammerton for the Board. Mr Fitzherbert, before the case was gone into, would raise the point that the Education Ordinance did not confer power upon any officer to sue in the name of the Board, and as William Cowern was the plaintiff in this action, he contended that he had no authority to sue in the case. The Act was wretchedly framed, and in its present shape no action could possibly be maintained under it.

After a few arguments between Counsel and His Honor,

Mr Hammerton stated that under the existing state of the Act he would accept a non-snit, as he was satisfied the opposite party were determined to appeal if a verdict was sustained, and consequently did not desire to embarrass the Board with the costs an appeal would entail. His Honor accordingly directed a nonsuit, with £3 3s professional costs, and 14s costs of Court. [His Honor then left the Bench.] (Before Major Turner.) Meredith v M‘Kenzie. To recover the sum of £l4 Ifis, expenses incurre d attending as a witness in Wanganui, in the case of M‘Kenzie v Dyke. Mr Fitzherbert for plaintiff. Verdict for amount with costs. Campbell v Same. To recover the sum of £9 4s fid, for attending in similar capacity. Mr Fitzherbert for plaintiff. Verdict for amount, with costs. J. Hirst (Inspector of Vaccination) v S. A. Caple. His Worship remarked that it was a pity the Inspector had brought such a number of persons from a distance in such wretched weather, upon a matter which was of no great importance to any person. Defendant pleaded guilty, but stated that the vaccination in the first instance had not succeeded. He forwarded a certificote to the inspector postponing the vaccination, and contended that the Inspector had not proceeded against all delinquents in Waihi and Hawera districts Two days after the summons had been served upon him, he received Dr Croft’s certificate. His Worship was of opinion that the Act demanded the Public Vaccinator, and not the parent to forward the certificate of successful vaccination to the Inspector. He would, however, reserve his decision in this and the other cases. Same v Buckly.

Defendant stated that he had applied to the Public Vaccinator to vaccinate the child, but it could not be effected in consequence of the child’s health. Mr Hirst admitted having received a certificate to that effect. Same v Davidson. Mr Hirst stated that ho had, since the issue of the summons, received the certifificate. Same v Locker. Defendant stated that the child had been vaccinated. Same v Winks. Mr Hammerton appeared for the defendant. Defendant deposed that his child had been unsuccessfully vaccinated once, and it was now under medical treatment. Mr Hammerton handed in a medical certificate, which stood good for two months, and contended that that alone was a good defence to any action. His Worship dismissed the case. Same v Worth. No appearance of defendant._ His Worship remarked that it could not be expected that a person could attend court upon such a wet day. Same v Lyttleton. Postponed.

Same v Sinclair. Defendant slated his child had been unsuccessfully vaccinated twice. Same v Fitzsimmons. Defendant stated that his child had been vaccinated. Same v M'Carthy. Child vaccinated once, but failed ta take. In the cases of Same v E. Hunt, Hnbsey, J., certificates were handed in from Dr Walker of successful vaccination. J. Gibson v D. Smite. To recover £l, being amount of damage which plaintiff’s garden sustained through trespass of defendant’s cow. Plaintiff deposed that he impounded the cow, and defendant paid the damages under protest. H. J. Davis proved the impounding of the cow, and releasing it upon receiving the damages from defendant, which were paid .under protest. Edward Mercer, a gardener, assessed the damages at from £1 to £1 10s, Defendant deposed that on the morning the cow was impounded he inspected plaintiff’s garden, which had only suffered very slight damage. T. Troloney deposed that the stripping of the outside leaves of the brocholi improved the growth. He assessed the damages at ss. Theoretically speaking, the cows had materially saved the brocholi by removing the outer leaves, uh'eh had the effect of driving the sap into the stalk. By Mr Gibson —Theoretically speaking, would you allow a cow into your garden ? Witness —No, I would not. Judgment for amount, with costs, £2 2s 6d-, making in all £3 2s 6d. Hirst v Pakenham. To r ;cover the sum £ll 4s rent due. Defendant admitted the dtbh Judgment for amount, with costs, to be paid in weekly instalments of £l. F. McCarthy v Emmerton. To recover £1 Is. No appearance of defendant. Verdict for amount, with costs. Taplin and Muir v Foster. To recover £lQBs, amountof dishonoured promissory note. Mr Hammerton appeared for plaintiffs. Judcrment for amount, with costs £3 7s. Ball v mercer. This was an action under the Master’s and Servants’ Act r for breach of contract, to compel defendant to return to his employ. Mr Hammerton appeared for plaintiff. Defendant pleaded not “guilty,” alleging that he did not leave his employer’s service, without the usual week’s notice. J. Ball deposed that he first engaged defendant at the rate of 15s per weeky anti subsequently he made another agreement with him to work until a horse of the value of £lB, which he had purchased for him, was paid off. Defendant was engaged at the rate of £4O per year, payable weekly. His wages were applied towards payment of the horse purchased for him. Defendant, who was rather difficult to keep under submission, deposed that he offered to pay plaintiff the difference between the amount of the wages due and the purchase-money for the horse, but plaintiff made no reply to his offer. Henever agreed to work out the value of the horse. Plaintiff should, have mentioned this at the time he gave him notice to leave his employ. B. Rhodes proved the selling of the horse to plaintiff. Mr Hammerton contended that the defendant had been guilty of a clear breach of contract, having agreed to serve his client for one year, and cited two cases under precisely the same circumstances, recently heard before Mr Kenny, R.M., in New Plymouth, when both cases were decided in favour of the plaintiffs—the case of Connell v Perrot, where it was only at the plaintiff’s express desire that defendant was not imprisoned for one month ; and the second Hoskin v Rodgers, when Mr Kenny adjudged defendant disentitled to recover any wages, although he had served his master 11 months out of a 12 months’ engagement. The Bench gave judgment' for defendant, whereupon Mr Ball (the plaintiff) jumped Tip and exclaimed, “ this case has been prejudged. I know it; and can prove it. I shall never again take : n ither case into this Court, as it is impossible to obtain justice. The Bench —Take care what you say. Mr Ball—l shall not retract a single sentence of what I have said. The Bench— Turn that man out of Court. His Worship left the Bt nfii amidst the greatest uproar ann confusion.