The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1883. THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1126, 26 July 1883, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1883. THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE.

The Resident Magistrate, as usual, absented himself from his duties last Monday. He might' to have attended the Temuka Coart last Monday, but did not, owing, we are informed, to indisposition. Everybody must of course sympathise with the sick, and to be absent under such circumstances is pardonable. Still we cannot help taking notice of the fact that whenever it is Court day in Temuka, and the morning happens to be either wet or cold, the Magistrate is invariably sickIf it only happened a few times it would not have surprised us, but when (his sort of thing occurs almost as frequently as Courts ought to be held in Temuka, it is we think very remarkable. It is no exaggeration (o say that on two out of every three days on which Courts ought to have been held in Temuka for the last twelve months, the Magistrate has either absented himself altogether or left before he had finished the business. On one occasion he adjourned a case for a quarter of an hour, and never came back to it, but rushed off by the train. Yery recently Mr Eli Mitchell, of Waitohi, sued Mr Richard Hoare and Mr Cross for trespass, but when the cases were called upon the Magis-

rate wanted to get away by the express train, and he adjourned them for a fortnight. Now, here is a case in which there were about seven farmers, and some other witnesses engaged, besides 'awyers from Timaru, and the Resident Magistrate never considered the loss it was to them to have the case adjourned, so long as he could get away by tiie express train. It was nothing to him that these men would lose their time in coming a second time, nor that lawyers should be paid for two journeys from Timaru instead of one ; nor that witnesses’ expenses for two days instead of one should be paid. And it is not once or twice, or three times, but almost every second Court day for the last twelve months that people have been put to similar inconvenience and expense through the total indifference of the Magistrate to all but his own convenience. On Monday Lst (here were litigants from Raugitata, Geraldine, and all parts of the district, with lawyers from Timaru and Geraldine in attendance, when a telegram came from the Resident Magistrate that he could not come. With the view of lessening the hardship of those who had come perhaps twenty miles to the Court, Mr Wills made an effort to get two Justices of the Peace to sit, but even this cannot be done without difficulty in Temuka. All the Justices of the Peace in the district live a considerable distance away, there is not one in town, and it is no easy matter to get a Bench of Justices to sit on the spur of the moment. However, attwo o’clock two Justices sat and some cases were heard, and only for that the people would have had to go to their homes and come again another day, to be disappointed a second time perhaps, as others had often been before them. Now, is not this a most objectionable stace of affairs ? We have often found fault with the decisions of the Resident Magistrate, but setting the question of competency aside, we think that the inconvenience and loss caused by his non-attendance on Court day, give the people in this district sufficient ground for complaint. It is simply disgraceful to have people coming from all parts of the district, with their lawyers from Timaru and elsewhere, only to find that there will be no Court, as the Magistrate has not come, and we think that our representative in Parliament might do us some worse service than to bring the matter under the attention of the Minister of Justice,

THE PRESENT-PARLIAMENT. There never sat in New Zealand a more corrupt Parliament than the present one. The present Government went in on the retrenchment ticket. For the first year they carried out the retrenchment policy, reduced salaries ten per cent and dismissed many of the civil servants. There was a sum of L 75,000 passed specially to give employment to the unemployed, but instead of appropriating that sum to the purpose for which Parliament passed it the the Colonial Treasurer left it in the coffers tf the Treasury, and came before the country blowing about what he had saved. They saved the L 75,000 and allowed the best men that we had—men, too, who had some capital—to leave the colony, and more than double that sum is now being spent on bringing raw immigrants into it. There is a story told of an old woman who used to buy eggs at one end of a bridge for sixpence and sell them at the other end for fivepence three farthings. The economy of the Colonial Treasurer is on a par with that of the old woman. But the retrenchment did not continue long. Political supporters wanted billets for their friends, needy relations could not go about starring, and the result is that the great retrenchment Government have increased the expenditure by L350,0u0 since 1881. That is a nice thing for a retrenchment Government to have said of them. They dismissed public servants of long standing, they drove the best workmen we had away, and at the same time increased the public expenditure enormously. And yet the herd of time servers that at present represent the people in Parliament keep them in power. Mr Swanson last Friday night moved that the estimates be referred back to the Ministry for reduction, but this was at once accepted as a ‘ no confidence’ motion, ‘No confidence’ has become the war cry of the present Ministry. Whenever a motion with which the Ministry disagree is brought forward, Major Atkinson at once raise the standard of the prophet and proclaims the holy war, because he knows that the members he has corrupted with borrowed money are pledged to keep him in power. If members were to

vote according to their consciences and not coerced by pressure the ‘ almighty dollar ’ of the Government brings to bear upon them, there is no doubt but that the estimates would be considerably reduce!, but when the ‘ no confidence’ cry is raised those who have sold themselves must obey. There were a few members who fought hard, but their efforts proved of no avail. Mr Turnbull resorted to the foolish practice of ‘ stonewalling,’ but it was of nou se. Mr Turnbull deserves the thanks of the country for the manly way in which he fought, even though he did do a little ‘ stonewalling.’ If every member was as earnest and as true to his trust the country would be differently governed. But there is no help for it now. The million a year will secure a majority for the present Government so long as the present Parliament is in existence, and it is as well to bow down to the inevitable and be satisfied until the next election.

THE DEFAULTING TAXPAYERS. Several defaulting taxpayers were summoned for last Monday by the Property Tax Commissioner for the amount of their Property Tax, but most of them had paid the money into Court some days before the date on which they were set down for hearing. So far as we can recollect the Clerk of the Court said that some of them had paid from seven to fourteen days before last Monday. This we should think ought to have relieved them from any liability to pay solicitor’s fee but Mr White did not think so. He asked the Court to grant a'solicitor’s fee in all these cases and the Court granted his request. We think this was a mistake. In the first place, those who had paid the money several days before the sitting of the Court had removed the necessity for the appearance of a solicitor, and ought not to be made to pay in consequence. In the second place, most of the sums were under L 5, and as it is a rule of the Court that no solicitor’s fee shall be allowed in cases where the amount recovered is under that sura we think that another val'd objection. Of course we do not profess to be able to give a legal opinion on the subject, and do not advise anyone not to pay, but at the same time the matter presents to us a very irregula r appear ance. The Justices can hardly be blamed. Mr White put the matter before them in a manner that might mislead any one. Ho said his fee would corae out of taxes paid by the rest of the community if the defaulters had not to pay it, and as it was their own fault that they had been summoned he maintained that it was fitter they should pay, than that the rest of the community should pay for recovering the taxes from them. The argument is a very plausible one, but there is another side to the question. It was certainly the fault of the defaulters that they were summoned, but they paid for that fault when they paid for the cost of the summons. It cannot be maintained that it was the fault of the man who paid several days previously that Mr White appeared on that day. It was the fault of Mr White’s client, who had neglected to intimate to him that the money had been paid, and it is wrong to make others pay for it. Justices of the Peace would do well to beware of the plausible arguments of lawyers, for it is their business to put the best face they can on their side ot the story. It would be well therefore to examine the other side of the question, and see which is the just one.