The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1875.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2033, 10 July 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1875.

Lokd'Bomillt, when Master of the Rolls, once remarked, " that he hoped the; time, would come when an ordinarily educated Englishman who had devoted his life to the "study of the law would be able to understand it; that the time certainly ;would 'not be in his day, but that; some of those who heard him might live to see it." : It is certainly a "consummation devoutly to be wished," but the time hoped for by; Lord Eomilly seems, as far as this colony is concerned, still to be a matter for the future. Theworst is that wnile doctors disagree as to the letter cr spirit of the law the public in general havoito suffer. We are.far from being foolish enough to imagine that the time will come when every man will be "his own lawyer," neither do we think it desirable that it ever should come, but it is not too much to hope that when a man. has taken legal advice and acted conscientiously thereon, he may fifid himself free from the danger of being "let in" for an i amount of expense and annoyance which he had no possible idea of incurring. We allude to the ,case of Bennett v. Spencer, with the main facts «f which the Thames public are tolerably conversant. They are these—Spencer had an agreement with one Cassin to lease to him the Parawai Gardens, one of the terms of the lease being, we are told, " that should Cassin fail in payment of rent due, Spencer might—2l days having elapsed since such default—re-enter his premises and after 24 hours' notice forcibly eject.'' With Bennett, Spencer had nothing to do; he was, as far as Spencer was concerned, a nonentity, and whether a servant or partner with Cassin mattered not one iota to Spencer. In fact Cassin might, for aught Spencer knew, have admitted ten or a dozen men into partnership. However, Cassin failed to pay his rent, and consented to leave the place; but Bennett, with whom Spencer had no sort of agreement, refused to go, and then Spencer, acting on legal advice, proceeded "to eject him forcibly ; " ie., he took his goods from his house and had them conveyed elsewhere, first, however, having taken a house for the accommodation of Bennett's family, and, should Bennett go peaceably, promising to pay the rent for a time. We mention this to show there was no "animus" on-the part of Spencer against Bennett, neither did he wish to

put him to any unnecessary inconvenience, his sole aim being to regain the possession of his own property as soon as possible, by the method ho was ; led to suppose was the right one. The result has been that Bennett, after i having through his lawyers refused the ten pounds offered him by Spencer's lawyer while the case was yet in its infancy, has gained nothing except the pleasure—if it be so—of a trip to Auckland gratis; that Spencer after much annoyance and expense has been called upon to enrich the Government coffers by a fine of £15; that the cause of truth and honesty, as far as this case is concerned, have been advanced in no way; and that the sole gainers are the lawyers who conducted the case! Looking, however, at the case from another point of view, any observer as shrewd as Mr John Tirooks Mason may see that there is a probability of other " Supreme Court cases sticking out." Suppose for instance A. lets his shop or house for any definite period, say a year 9or a month, to 8., and B makes a sub-agreement without the consent or knowledge of the owner to take another man as partner or servant — it matters not which—for a period of, say three years, and at the end of the first year B gives up the house or shop peaceably, but hia partner or servant refuses to leave; what will be.the re-, suit? Will the law'fine him £15 if he re-enters, or must he have recourse to what are so aptly termed the "law's delays," to say nothing of its expense, to institute a suit against; a man from whom, if he defeats him, he can gain nothing, but who3e expenses, if he be himself defeated, he will be have to pay to the uttermost farthing ? In addition to this, the occupant may, if he so pleases, damage the premises in a hundred small ways during his occupancy. It certainly seems to be a case of two evils, and the difficulty is to find out which is the least. We must remember that in looking at the case from Spencer's point of view, Bennett was a mere trespasser from the moment when he (Spencer) made his reentry on the land which he let to Cassin; and the question may well be asked, does the law allow any person or persons to trespass on another man's land and forbid him to expel them without first appealing to the law ? It must also be remembered that the law is not very, easy of access, neither is it always exI pedltibus in its movements; and much damage miftht.be done and'inconvenience caused ere the law could:be brought to lay its " strong hand " on the trespassers, even if caught they ywere, which is not always certain. We cannot help asking the old Roman Censor's question Cuißono, to whose advantage was it that this suit was ever brought ? Bennett could have nothing to gain by taking upon himself the character of some "village Hampden;" while, if the race of Dodson and Fogg be extinct, and Mr Spencer has been made the' proverbial shuttlecock between two lawyers, it is surely one of those.occasions on which a "man does well to be angry." v - ;. ; ;j