RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Yesterday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1850, 5 September 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. -Yesterday.

(Before W. EiUSHR, Esq., R.M.) CHICK V. NIKOEIMA PoUTOTAEA.—His Worship, in giving judgment in this case said:—The parties in this case were agreed that the defendant was liable to the rate if the second part of the Highways Act of 1874 was found to be in operation in the district. The plaintiff produced one copy of the Highways Act in which the second part was included; the defendant produced another, where it was omitted. I reserved judgment so that I might see the original statute roll. I waited in Auckland until the Superintendent's return, and I am happy to say, for the sake of the Highway Boards, that judgment must go for the plaintiff. As the Act originally stood, the word "second" was omitted, but the defect has been rectified, and the correction has been initialed by the Speaker.— Mr Macdonald said: I hope the Court will permit me, in reference to this case, to make a few observations, not in any way as questioning the judgment. The Court has taken the trouble to satisfy itself so far as to the statute roll, but I think it my duty to my client— t feel it my privilege as counsel, audlbelieveifc to bemy duty to the public—to state my belief that in this matter there has been a most unjustifiable tampering with the statute roll of this province. Of course if I thought I was wrong as to the facts, I should be the last to make such a charge, but so far as I have inquired, and taking the results of the inquiry made by the Court, I have no hesitation in taking the consequences of saying that the statute roll of the province has been tampered with in a most uujustiliable manner. It does not appear whether by accident or design — but of course suoli a thing can only be taken to have been done by design—the Legislature of this provinco passed the Highways Act of 1874 in such a form that parts 2 and 3 only came into force in a particular way, which has not been taken. The Act has been tampered with, altered, falsified—l do not know but I would be justified in using a stronger word—by the introduction of two words which have the effect of bringing into operation what I may almost describo as the Act itself. Tho intention of the framers of tho Act may have beou to bring Part 2, lib Part 1, into operation without tho formality of a proclamation, but that was not oarriod out, and I say that to nllor tho Act was a highly roprohousiblo proceeding. I consider that I am imlillml to remark upon it, booauso I ho immtuliato olloot has boon to make my (Ami liable to a debt and costs which, amwi'ding to the Ant as it was passod, ho is not liable for. To alter tlio Act as has boon ilouo was not only roprohonsiblo but foolbili.ita itwould have boon much loss trouble for the iStiporintondont to have brought part li in forco by proclamation. It would Imvo boon as littlo trouble as to have falsified tho staluto roll itself. I have felt it m!y' duly to my client to make these observa-' lions, and I hopo they will reach the ears of tlioso who are responsible in the matter.—His Worship said that he knew nothing about such matters. It was his duty to presume that everything had been dona properly and in order. If it-had been tho other way, tho Highway Boards would have been put to great inconvenience.—The amount sued for was £26 Ids, and tho costs amounted to £3 125.. 11. Scott v. L. J. Bagnam. — His Worship gavo judgment in this case as follows:—this case resolves itself into two questions—one, whether a meeting

held under section 17 of the Highways Act, 1874,_ has either inherently or by the operation of that Act, a power of adjournment. The other being, whether the voting by show of hands, especially when a poll was demanded, was illegal. I think it was illegal, and that the proceeding resulting in tho election of Mr Bagnall was bad on that ground, and therefore I have only to declare thac Mr Bagnall was elected unduly and contrary to the Highways Act, 1874, and I adjudge him to be ousted of the office of a member of the Kauwaeranga Highway Board and the office of Chairman of the said Board, and further order tho payment by the defendant to the plaintiff of the costs of this proceeding. The case being disposed of on the second of the two grounds, I need mako no reference to the first.-The costs amounted to £7 Bs.

J. Habbis v. T. Catean.—Mr Dodd for plaintiff; Mr Macdonald for defendant.—Claim, £<L 16s for goods had and received.—Plaintiff was nonsuited with costs. Judgment Sumikuts.--M\ Breen v. H. J' Bargrove. Some months ago, judgment had been given againßt defendant for £5 and costs, damages, for a dog belonging to Bargrove having bitten a boy of Breea's. Defendant was examined as to his means. The case was adjourned for a week in order to examine into the truth of defendant's statements.

Oases Adjourned.—J". T. E. Rogan v. Golden Pah G.M.0., £17 2s, adjourned for a week; U. Parslow v. J. Buchanan, £50, adiourned for a week; W. H. Taipari and liapana Maunganoa v. 0. Grant, £3 6s, adjourned for two weeks; W. H. Tdipari v. 0. Grant, £1 6s, adjourned for two weeks; jHopcraffc, McOullough, and Co. v. T. B. Cameron, adjourned to Bth September.

Cases Struck Our.—o. Judd v. Old Whau G.M.0., £38 10s 6d; F. Wells v. H. Evans, £218s lid.