Baggott v. Waitoa Road District.

Thames Star, Volume XVI, Issue 5119, 13 June 1885, Page 2

Baggott v. Waitoa Road District.

As the arguments used by the counsel for the Waitoa Road District (Mr Hay) at the K.M. Court yesterday hare excited some interest, and hare not been reported, we publish an account of the contentions raised by him, and which resulted in the plaintiff being nonsuited, and mulcted in costs amounting to £39 16s :— Mr Hay raised two objections, riz.: (Ist; That the case should not bate been brought in the E.M. Court, as he sabmitted the jurisdiction of that Court had been taken away by the tublio Work* Act, 1882. The claim, although brought before tbe E.M. Court, was neither more nor leBS than a claim for compensation, for which the remedy and coarse of procedure to recover was prescribed by that Act. Although as a rule juritdictioo cannot be taken away except by expreif words, there are exceptions to that rote, and in some cases jurisdiction wn taken away by implication—Maxwell on Statutes p. 107, and Section*.27, 29, 29. 66, and 90 of the Act were referred to. The word "shall," used in all these motioue when prescribing tbe eour*e of PW^

eednre and constituting the Cono pen ration Co^rt, was imperative, and excluded the jurisdiction of othor Cpurtg. (2) This objection was one which perhaps could not be taken until some eridence had been given, and he merely mentioned it briefly in order that the Court might consider it, and he would more folly argue at the proper time. Before the passing of the Act of 1882, or rather its immediate precursor of 1876, v the act complained of, viz., digging a ditch .Jon plaintiff's land ar d brinuiDg water thereon without his consent, vras a wrong, ■nd gave the plaintiff a cause of action. Sob irction 10 of Section 90 authorises ■ the defendant to commit that act, viz., v " to enter upon any land and dig ditches," Ac, doing as little damage as possible. , It is well settled law that no Court can treat that as a wrong which the Legisla ture has authorised, and as the Legislature bad authorised the Road Board to do the act complained of, there was no actionable wrong, and consequently no cause of action. Mr Hay then cited Trammer•mith Railway Company v. Rand, which was a case under the Land Clauses Conrolidation Act, 1845, and the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. 'This ease had gone through all the Courts up to the House of Lords, and the judgment was now law of the highest authority. It was there held that there was no cause of action when what previously had been ■0 was legalised. The language of the Acts •bote referred to with respect to prescribing a new course of procedure was practically identical with that used in the Pablio Works Act, 1882.