The Patea Mail. PUBLISHED WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 1876.

Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 122, 10 June 1876, Page 2

The Patea Mail. PUBLISHED WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 1876.

At the sitting of the District Court just closed, a striking example of how easy it is for unprincipled persons to put others in better circumstances to Joss and inconvenience, by preferring outrageous and unfounded claims, was presented. A man named Kelly, a splitter, or something of the kind, was employed by Mr Beamish, of Oeo, and was duly settled with for the work and labor he had performed, with the exception of a trifle under £3. He made 3 claim, however, for a much larger sum, between £6O and £7O in fact, and, on being refused payment of this extortionate demand, at once commenced an action in the District Court here, for its recovery. It was set down for hearing this week, but on the first day, ?though the plaintiff was drinking about iihe township, he did not put in an appearance at the Court. The case was .adjourned till the following day, in order to give him an opportunity of •attending, and the actual money due to him was paid into Court. As soon as he ascertained this, he at once made a demand for and obtained it—a plaintiff having of course a perfect right to accept ..-any sum he chooses in full of any claim. The defendant, Mr Beamish, was, - of course, compelled to subpoena witnesses, and to attend the Court himself, to resist the demand made by Kelly. In .-addition to his personal expenses, he had to bring four witnesses from a -distance of fifty miles, and is certainly liable for their expenses, coming and ■going, and for the time that they have lost. This will amount to a considerable gum, and it would almost have been as well for him to have submitted to the projected imposition, as to have fought a winning battle that involves serious pecuniary loss- It is true that'he is nominally allowed some £2O or so, as costs, but his chances of recovering the •amount from Kelly, who is ‘‘over the bills and far away,” is “about as shady as is possible. Even if the ex-plaintiff had not made tracks the possibility of being recouped any money out of pocket from

him would have been on a par with getting blood out of a stone, and the satisfaction of lodging him in gaol for a period would certainly not be worth the additional expense such a procedure would entail. Such is the law, however, and all that Mr Beamish, or other like victims, can do is to grin and bear these losses with the greatest philosophy at their .command. In the discussion that arose on the subject, on the case being called, his Honor remarked that costs incurred in actions for which there was no foundation were really fraudulent, and in such a light they certainly ought to be regarded by law. As the law now stands any unscrupulous person may bring baseless actions without number, with the hope of extorting something, defendants in many cases preferring to save the annoyance and expense of defending them. Should resistance, as in the above case, be offered, they can quietly slip away, or drop proceedings, and escape scatheless. Either, on an action being commenced, security or money, sufficient to defray the reasonable costs of an adverse verdict, should be lodged, or else those bringing them forward on frivolous, vexatious, or insufficient grounds should be liable to criminal prosecution, failing to pay expenses incurred. The judges before whom such cases wore tried could certify as to their reasonable or unreasonable nature, and, on their certificate, further proceedings could be taken or stayed. Till some such remedies arc adopted actions of this kind w r ill continue to abound, and respectable people be at the mercy of designing conspirators, who commence them with the hope of obtaining a verdict by a fluke, or of extorting a payable compromise, which many defendants, rather than "go to Court, would be willing to agree to. The subject is one well worth the attention of the Legislature dining the coming session.