RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1189, 31 October 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

This Day [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] The were no criminal cases for hearing today at the above court. In the case of Laughlan v. Wright, there was no appearance. In the cases of Dufaur and Chrisp v. Brewer, the clerk of the court wasjnsti’ucted to telegraph to Napier in order to see what had been done in reference to the service of the summonses. Mvllooly v. Apiata te Haini.

This was a judgment summons for £75, re- , mitted to the R.M.’s Court, Gisborne, from 1 the R.M. ’s Court at Tologa Bay. Mr Kenny I appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Rees for ' the defendant. Mr Rees objected to the court hearing the matter (1,) because he desired to apply for a re-hearing : (2) because some of the items for which judgment hud already been given in the R.M. Court had been included with others in an action now pending in the Supreme Court between the same parties; (3) because the court at Gisborne had no jurisdiction to hear the summons that had been taken out in the court at Tologa Bay. Mr Kenny argued that the court had nothing to do with the first two points. He would be able to prove that since the judgment in the R.M.’s Court, Mr Seymour had paid defendant £45, and Mr Loisel, £5O, and that defendant had paid Mr Rees £7O for costs, although he had done nothing towards satisfying the judgment. As to the 3rd objection, it was simply ridiculous. The district was one and indivisible, “ The Resident Magistrate's District of Poverty Bay,” as it was termed in the Gazettes. In Hawke's Bay, cases commenced in Napier were heard at Waipawa, and vice versa, so also in Nelson, where there was one R.M. district, but cases were heard at Brightwater and Nelsou, and remitted from one place to the other. If the court which sat at Tologa Bay was in a different district from the Court which sat in Gisborne, possibly there might have been something in his learned friend’s contention on this head. He might add that this summons was taken out by Mr Mullooly without his knowledge. The Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the summons sent down by Captain Preece, and struck it out of the list with costs, though Mr Kenljy pointed out that the language of the Act of 1879 giving the R.M. power to grant costs where case struck out for want of jurisdiction, was not applicable to proceedings on judgment summonses, but only to cases where the Court was asked to try an action.