JUSTICE’S JUSTICE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2079, 31 July 1890, Page 3

JUSTICE’S JUSTICE.

VO - THE EDITOR,

gj r —-Ab one present at the last Sitting of the E.M. Court at Temuka I could not fail to be struck with the glorious uncertainty of the law when administered by the average Justice of the Peace. In the case of Cameron V Hitphpoch, in which amount of £i Ssad W &B plained f9 r wages, it was admitted that nofault was found with tlie plaintiff until he had worked a week and 2\ days. A row then took i, mi her W ,f tempted unßucoesßtttlly to eject the «lamtifPfrom his premises by physical force he gave the plaintiff a week s notice. After the rough treatment he had received plaintiff not unaatur-

ally left his work at once, and claimed for his full time. The magistrates were, however, of opinion that a week's notice should have been given by the plaintiff, and not only mulcted the unfortunate man in that amount, but although judgment was given for the balance, allowed him no costs whatever. The amount for which judgment was given was 6s 3d. The costa in this case would probably be about 14s, In another case, Scannell v. McGrath, the plaintiff, without any hesitation whatever, admitted wilfully breaking the Licensing Act, and claimed the protection of the law lor having done so. The claim was for the repayment of money lent in his licensed premises on a Sunday for the purpose of being then and there spent in drink. Counsel for the defendant demonstrated to the bench at all events to the mind of any thinking person that the plaintiff was debarred by law from recovering the sum claimed, yet judgment was at once given for the plaintiff with all costs. Equity often, and in many cases very properly overrules mere legal quibbles, but when it involves the breaking of the laws of the land, its strongest advocates can hardly find excuse for it. I ain, etc., Onlookbb.