RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, TE AROHA.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 439, 22 January 1890, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, TE AROHA.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 21st. (Before IJ. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M.) Drunk : B, Reheal was charged by the Police with being drunk in Te Arolia on the day previous. Accused pleaded guilty. In reply to His Worship Sergeant Emerson sai l Reheal was an old resident in the place and had not been brought up on a like charge previously. Discharged with a caution. Judgment Summons : John Williams v. Louis Petery. No appearance of either party. Sir Wm. Wasteneys solicitor;for. judgment creditor. After hearing what the solicitor in the case had to say His Worship declined to .-make any order, but consented to adjourn.the cas: until next Court day. Adjourned Case : Eliza Reed v. John McSweeney ; claim £2 17s G I for grazing of cattle the property of defendant, on land formerly in plaintiff’s occupation. Sir Win. Wasteneys, solicitor for plaintiff, Mr R. W. Dyer, solicitor for defendant. [This c.ise was adjourned from last Court day oh application of plaintiff, who then stated she ha 1 letters at home which she would produce, in which the Public Trustee authorised her to receive the money sued for.] Sir Wm. Wasteneys said he would.

ask for a further adjournment, on the groun i that Mrs Reed hail not yet received a reply to a letter she had writ ten to the Public Trustee at Wellington, lie also stated the defendant had teen duly notified that an adjournment would be asked for. ; Mr Dyer on behalf of.'defendant sai'i his client was in attendance in the Court, as, although he had received, what perhaps was intended as a proper notice, it was really of no value, not being even signed. The so called notice was here tendered in evidence and read as follows “To John McSweetiev,Te Arohti West: Take notice that I intend on Tuesday, 21st Jntiu-irv, to apply to tlie Resilient Magistrate, at Te Arolia Court, for a further adjournment of the case—Myself v. Yourself—in order to allow time forme to gel «n answer from the Public Trustee at Wellimrti n-—Waiorongonmi, 14th , Jan- , nary 1890.” Sir Win. Wasteneys sail the notice produced was a rough draft that had been drawn by him for Mrs lieed to copy and sign. His Worship: Then it lacks a most essential particular, that pointed out by Mr Dyer, net being even signed. Bu. besides that, the case is t o’ even set out on the notice, which is also most essential. Sir Wm. Wasteneys : Not necessarily Your Worship. His Worship to Sir Wm. Wasteneys: 1 lam speaking of the usual procedure in New Zealand Courts, not what may be allowed in England, There is no excuse for a solicitor when he prepares a draft and - makes a mistake, such as in the present instance. The preparation of such a notice is purely mechanical work to a solicitor, like a. b. c. All respectable firms of solicitors set out the cases where necessary. His Worship here asked if Mrs Reed bad got a copy of the letter referred to as having been written by her to the Public Trustee at Wellington. Copy of letter handed in to His Worship to read. His Worship said in the last clause of the letter plaintiff asked the Public Trustee for permission to be allowed to receive this money. Mr Dyer : It is quite evident from the admission of the plaintiffs own side that she has not got that authority which she asserted on last Court day the already had in her possession. His Worship to Sir Wm. Wasteneys: I think (as Mr Dyer says), from your own admission you have no authority to receive this money. Sir Wm. Wasteneys : But here is the authority Your Worship. His Worship to Sir Wm. Wasteneys : Then go on with your case. Why ask for an adjournment. Sir Wm. Wasteneys : We wish to I await the reply from the Public Trustee to the letter sent him by Mrs Reed. Mr Craig writes to Mr Watkis, the agent for the Public Trustee in Auckland, I with reference to the estate, and -Mr Watkis writes back a reply -without knowing anything about the case. .. At this stage of the proceedings Sir Win. Wasteneys. said he would proceed with the case, and called upon Mrs Reed to give evidence. Eliya Anne Reed (sworn), id reply to Sir Wm. Wasteneys: lam the wife of the late oreo.. Reed, and reside at Waio rougomai. < M.y husband owned 81 acres of land on deferrrd payment, also leasehold land about 75 acres. It was o?i this leasehold. land defendants cattle grazed. He brought me lOs onncconnt in April last. He still owes me L2 17s for gracing. - I paid twelve ntpijths

rent on the section since my husband's death. 1 received rent froni Mr Joseph James, after the Public Tiustee took over the management of the estate. Mr Dyer here, for the second or third time, strongly protested against the maimer in w ich Sir Win. Wasteneys was conducting the case, and said he was disregarding even all the elementary known rules of evidence, asking most leading questions, and altogether conducting the case in a most extraordinary way. His Worship: lam not taking it down, because it cannot be accepted as evidence. Sir Wm. Wasteneys questioned witness somewhat closely as to whether she could not swear that the signature attached to the letter purporting to have been written by Mr Walkis, was his signature ; but she said she could not swear to that.

Sir Wm. Wasteneys : Of course the witness is over scrupulous, Your Worship, His Worship to Sir Win. Wasteneys : You should be the very last man to ask a magistrate togointoall manner of infringtnents of the law of evidence--that’s my opinion as to vvliat a lawyer ought to be. Sir Wm, Wasteneys at this stage said he would again ask for an adjournment, stating he was not n a position to go on with the case. His Worship : Then Mr Dyer’s suggestion was the best for you, viz., to take a non suit. S>r Wm. Wasteneys then said he would pro jeed with the case. "[Examination of Mrs Reed resumed.] Defendant had his stock on *-he ground .until he purchased the section at auction. Mr Dyer remarked that he did not think it necessary to ask any questions of the witness, Mrs Reed. This closed the case for plaintiff. Mr Dyer asked for a nonsuit, and briefly addressing the Court, sai 1 the Counsel for the plaintiff had most entire*!)’ and signally failed to prove Ids case, or any one of the contentions he had raised witli respect thereto. In fact the very wording of the draft notice prepared for plaintiff by her solicitor,showed site had no proper authority for receiving the money in question. At the 9usges'ion of His Worship, Mr Jas. Ctaig (whose name had been mentionedi&s acting for the auent of the Public J rUftee), was put in the box, and in reply Dyer, sai I : Ik now Mr Watkisp'lHgeiit lor the Public Trustee at Wellington. The signature atniuhe 1 to the letter produced I know to he Mr Wat Ids’ signature, .and' the letter .leferred to was received from him by me, stating that if any money wasdueit was payable to him for the "benefit of the estate i generally. Sir Win. Wasteneys.having addressed the Cuu t : His Worship nonsuited plaintiff with tost s'£2 13s Gd ; and in doing so remarked that in the copy of Mrs Weed’s letter of January 15th, to the Public Trustee at Wellington, site says ‘•Will you kindly allow me to collect.” etc. Now, seeing she took out the plaint on December I7t'i, it was not. likely she would in the letter referred to, ask for authority to collect this money, if she had obtained already any such authority. This was all tijffi business.