RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 115, 21 April 1870, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before "W: L. Simpson, Esq., R-.M.) Thursday, Araii, 14: Kepple v/ Black.— Claim of £30, for breach of contract. Mr. Mouat (from Mr. M>Keay's ofnceji appeared for plaintiff, and- Mr. Keen (from Mr, Sard's office) for the defendant. It appeared by the evidence that in November last the defendant employed one Robert Dick as groom, to .travel with the entire horse Prince Alfjed j.and. that the said- Robert Dick, contrary to instructions given to him by hia, employer, entered into the engagement at Tuapeka which was the ground of this action. The defence was that Dick, had: not only exceeded, his duty, but had* actually acted in violation of specific instructions. The case lasted for nearly two hours, a great deal, of evidence being given, and his Worship .reserved' his decision until the following Monday. Monday, April 18. (Before the same .Magistrate. )*■ Kepple v. Black ,-Jn this case his Worship gave judgment fpr defendant, with costs of Court, and £4 10s. expenses, defendant having been summoned from Tokonjairiro. Scott-V. Mead.— Claim of £40 10s., toll taken.on the Waitahuna-road^ and damages .sustained iby. plaintiff in consequence of defendant warning hirru not- to .travel that way again, thus leading him, upon several ocpasions, to go by v a.,much longer and very difficult rpute. Mr. Keen appeared for the plaintiff; 'and Mr. Copland for the defence. Mr. Copland requested to be informed why Mr. Keen did ; not ask leave-, to appear. Mr. Keen, drew,, the attention-, of the Bench to .the, fact that his words upon this oqpasionin intimating that he was in the case" were the same as they had always been, viz., "Please the Court, I' appear for the plaintiff." His Worship replied- that Mr. Keen was registered as an . agent to appear, in the Warden's Court ; and that so far. as the R.M.s Court was concerned,' Mr. Keeti had for years had a general 1 permission to appear, and haying had many cases, had doubtless not considered it necessary to seek a special permission, in every case. His Worship further bbservd that the mode of intimation that he appeared in a case adopted by Mr. Keen was, and had ever been, courteous and respectful to the Court, and he saw nothing whatever to find fault with in it.

Mr. Copland said that he was quite unaware of the existance of any such thing as " being registered to appear " as an agent in the Warden's Court. His Worship said that he thought if Mr. Copland would look a little clpaer he would find that there was such a, provision. The case was then proceeded with. The plaintiff and one witness, named Capstick, proved that on the ISith Febuary, late at night, the two teams belonging Ito1 to plaintiff were stopped by defendant and his men, and not allowed to pass until 10s. toll had been paid. Defendant did not actually receive the 10s. , but demanded it, and ordered plaintiff to pay it to another man — a pitcher. Evidence "was also given relative to the loss sustained by plaintiff in consequence of his having performed three subsequent journeys by the old " Breakneck " road, by reason of having been told by defendant that he would not again, be allowed, to pass that way, A ' • The defendant and hia witness, one William Hays, flatly den,ied the account given by plaintiff and Capstick relative to the payment of the toll, swearing distinctly that defendant w.as not present at all, and consequently never demanded any toll. His Worship ruled that consequential damages could not be recovered ; and as for the toll, the evidence was even and diametrically opposite. He would there-, fore give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss the case with costs, and 303. expenses.