THE WAYS OF THE WORLD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1251, 11 October 1884, Page 2

THE WAYS OF THE WORLD.

1 notice that your reporter does rotalways give what appears to me to be the cream of what occurs. He gives the solid facts, but disregards the humorous side. 1 think this a mistake. These are h*rd times, and people want something to laugh at in order to put them in good humor, snd, if once you find them softened thus, they will advertise. Don't scold them as you do ; flatter them ; tell them they are all generous patrons, and if they do such silly things as advertise in a sheet almanac don't notice it. I am distinguished for the amount of wisdom I carry about me so you may rely on what I tell you. And now, in order to help you along I shall give you occasionally a few scraps showing up the funny side of things, and giving a critical analysis of subjects as they arise.

Mr Robinson appears to be a very capital magistrate. He is patient, painstaking and clear-headed, and he is extremely courteous in his treatment of witnesses. He addresses them with the greatest urbanity, and a pleasant smile invariably plays upon his agreeable countenance. His generally pleasing manner and ways has rondured him a favorite with me, and a conviction has thus been me that he is a clever maa. It .vas, therefore, with some surprise and disappointment I found myself differing from him in many of his decisions in Temuka last Wednesday.

In tho first case that came before him he soemed to jump at a conclusion. Ido not like people who jump at conclusions. A man was brought up charged with having used the filhiest language it would be possible to give utterance to in the passage leading from the bar to the kitchen of a hotel. The charge laid in the information was " using obscene language in a public place," and evidently the worthy Magistrate did not think the passage of the hotel a public place, for he declined to hear further evidence, and dismissed the case without a caution. Now, to all intents and purposes a hotel is a public place, and when filthy language is made use of, especially in the presence of females as in the case referred to, it oughtjto be punished. The conduct of the Magistrate in thus dismissing the case amounts to an encouragement to the commission of such offences. What can the man think now but that he can use any language he likes in a hotel 1

The second case which appeared to have been dealt with in a rather hasty manner was that of a lad named Nelson, who was charged with threatening to burn the dwelling-house of his mother. The Magistrate did not like tho way in which the case was brought into Court, end he dismissed it without taking any evidence. Theie is a bit of history cmnected with the arrest of this lad. He is only 16 years old, and lives with his mother. About a fortnight ago he quarrelled with her, and threatened to bum down her house, which threat he proceeded to put into execution by setting fire to the paper on the wall. Information of his conduct was given to the police, atid one of them proceeded on horseback to arrest him. The lad, however, had his weather eye open, and when he saw the constable approaching he took to his heels across the paddocks. The constable applied the spurs, and, clearing the fence, galloped across the paddock, but the runaway got over an impassable fence on the other side of it before being overtaken. SeeiDg that he was making towards a certain point, the constable spurred his horse more vigorously to get round by the road and moot him thero, but bis difficulties commenced to multiply. Wilder rode he than either John Gilpin or Tam O'Shanter, and when getting round a sharp turn down came horse and rider splash into the gutter. No bones were broken, however, and recognising that it was of no use to pursue the lad on horseback through the country he had selected for the race, the constable tied up the horse and cleared the next fence at one bound. The runaway had obtained a good start, and the betting was even amongst those who witnessed the hunt. A large tract ot country was traversed, but after a run of about a mile the runaway was seen enfolded in the arms of the constable. Both the hunted and the hunter had a very poor opinion of each other for the next ten minutes or more, and yet they were inseparable until thoy reached Temuka. Let us hope that the week the lad spent in Timaru gaol, together with the terrors of such another arrest, will have the effects of cooling 1 his temper. He could not have been much overawed by the way he was treated by the Court.

Geordie Ramsay acted the comedy part in the proceedings of the R.M. Court last Wednesday. He was up for the usual crime, that of using language not allowed by law. Poor'Geordie ! His unruiy tongue when loosened by whiskey often gets him into trouble. He has, 1 believe, been fourteen or fifteen times up in this district for indecent or violent language used while under the influence of drink, and he never appears in Court without creating a good deal of amusement. He seems to realise that it is his business to amuse those present, and he never lets pass an opportunity of «aying something quaint or comical, after which he turns around and smiles with evident satisfaction, as if thinking to himself "that fetched them." Last Wednesday he unburdened his soul to the R.M., and represented himself as an object of pity through having been persecuted by the police. He said he frequently visited Timaru, Dunedin and Christchurch, and no one molested him, but ho could not go quietly about his business in this district without being "shoved into chokey." As an instance of this persecution, one gentleman had laid an information against him because he refused to drink with him. There was a smile of incredulity on every countenance in the room, »s it was whispered round that the character of the gentleman must hare been verj shady when Mr Ramsay refused to drink with him, and, taking advantage of the eye of the Bench being off him, he indulged in a quiet chuckle at the idea himself. However, the cases were proved, and Geordie was mulcted in a fine of £6, or 14 days' imprisonment. The alternative of a fine is generally regulated by the length of time it would take the accused to earn it. Hi's Worship must have a high opinion of Mr Ramsay when he made his imprisonment for 14 days an equivalent for £G ! The fiae whs out of proportion to the term of im-

prisonment. Poor Geordie !he has been woll educated and tenderly raared, ho is very respectably connected, and would undoubtedly make a respectable member of society only for the misfortune of being addicted to drink.

The case of the Official Assignee v. J. Bori presented some amusing features. Mr W. U. Beswick is the Deputy Assignee, and the plaintiff in case, but when placed in the box he said he never gave any authority to set th« law in motion—that he knew nothing of his name having been used in connection with it until ha got a subpoena from the defendant's solicitor on the previous evening. Here was a novel position, and the lawyers went at it. It was a drawback for Mr Hameraley to find the plaintiff, for whom he was acting, denying that he had given authority to institute the proceedings. Mr Hamersley made vehement efforts to prevent the evidence from coming out, but it came out, and he appeared to be completely nonplussed by it. Mr White commented on the absurdity of the position, and asked whether Mr Beswick would be indemnified, but Mr Berwick said it was possible his solicitor had given the authority. Happy thought ! Mr Hamersley jumped at this, and said the solicitor had given him authority and written to him a letter. Mr White asked that it should be produced, but Mr Hamersley hadn't it handy just then. However, this point was settled, and the case proceeded.

The development of the case showed peculiar features, but in order to understand it properly it is necessary to give its history. A man named Walker owed Beri money, for which he obtained judgment and took out an execution. Walker's goods were taken under a warrant, and before they were sold ho became bankrupt. Tn the forenoon of the 16th Sept. Walker filed, and notice of this was sent to the bailiff, who refused to sell unless indemnified by Beri. Beri gave the indemnity and sold the same etening the goods taken under the execution warrant.. Now, the poin*, was, had Beri a right to sell ? Clause 53 of the Bankruptcy Act vests, the property of the bankrupt in the Official Assignee for the purpose of dividing it amongst the creditors, but clause 71 says the property divisible amongst the creditors shall not include tools, wearing apparel and furniture to the value of £25. Clause 72 says that save p.s excepted in clause 71 (that is, the £?5 worth) all the property become absolutely vested in the Official Assignee. The common-sense view of this is that the Official Assignee has neither right nor title to the £25 worth. The object for which the Assignee gets the property ia to divide it amongst the creditors, but the £25 worth of furniture, etc., is not divisible ainoDgst the creditors -the law allows the bankrupt to keej. that. When, therefore, the Assignee has no right to divide it or deal with it in any way it could not possibly be vested in him, and when the law allows that amount to the bankrupt it must be legally his property. This is as cleai as noon-day, yet the R.M. held the £25 worth of furniture was the property of the Assignee, and it was on this ground that judgment was given against Beri. If the property had not vested in the Assignee, as it certainly had not, Beri should have won the case.

There was another point in the case. In the list which Walker filed he sat down his assets as nil. Well, now, if his assets were nil, the property which thus became vested in the Official Assigns" was nil, and consequently the CKli \ .. As-mn. o could not sue for property which he never had. Thus, in the first place, no property became vested in the Assignee because the bankrupt did not hand any over to him ; secondly, the property in dispute could not b 9 vested in the Assignee because the law allowed to the bankrupt £25 worth of furniture, etc. The property which vests in the Assignee is that which is divisible amongst the bankrupt's creditors, and clearly the £25 worth is no part of this. To say that it is amounts to saying that the bankrupt is a creditor in his own estate, and that the £25 is his divisional share of the assets, which is an absurdity. Thirdly the official assignee's name was used without his knowledge, and he disclaimed having any interest in the proceedings. If then the Official Assignee had no property belonging to the bankrupt's creditors, how could Mr Beri have sold it, and why should judgment have been given for the Official Assignee, especially when the Assignee neither desired nor authorised it. The judgment was undoubtedly wrong, and Mr Beri is the sufferer.

Who then is the gainer by the transaction 1 Mr Beri had to " shell out " seven guineas, butwho is to get the money ? The Official Assignee will not get it for the benefit of the creditors, Deither will a penny of it ever reach Mr Walker, but it will be swallowed up by the expenses and probably it will not suffice to pay all costs.

Mr George Levens said something in the Court last Wednesday which evoked much laughter. In arguing the point with Mr Hooper he said that people were buried in a mistake on the section on which the forge stands. This assertion appeared funny and caused much laughter, but nevertheless it was true. The grounds on which the Courthouse, the Post-office, and the Volunter Hall htand was once laid out as a cemetery reserve, and people were buried there. Mr Hooper's forge stands outside the reserve boundary, but in the early days people were not very particular, and the place not being fenced, people were buried outside the cemetery boundary. It is this which leads Mr Hooper to suppose that his place is within the boundary of the reserve and that consequently no one has a right to claim rent for it.

This section on which Mr Hooper's forgo stands has a history. Mr Hooper is not the first who has fallen into a mistake about it. It was first built on by a man named McNaman who believed it to be a Crown land section between the cemetery aud Mr Rhode&'s property. Mr McNaman subsequently disposed of his interest in it to Mr P. Carr, who held it until the discovery was made that it was a part of Mr Rhodes's land. Mr Carr then got a lease of it from Mr Rhodes, which lease was bought by Mr Quinn from the trustees in Mr Can's estate. Com O'Lanus.