RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 132, 18 August 1870, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) Thursday, August 11. A. MTherson v. W. G. Buchan.— Claim, £23. Verdict for amount claimed with costs. Mr. Gooday appeared for plaintiff. M'Luskey v. W. Swanwick. —Claim, £23. Verdict for amount with costs. Same v. A. Long. — Claim, £13. Verdict for amount with costs. Same v. J. Long. — Claim, £16. Verdict for amount with costs. Monday, Aug. 15. (Before the same Magistrate.) W. D. Morrison v. T. Arthur. — Claim, £6 13s, being for storage of goods. £2 17s was paid into Court by plaintiff, and pleaded no further indebtedness. Verdict for £5 and costs, inclusive of amount paid into Court. Nixon v. Adamson. — Claim, £20 10s 4d, for work and labour done. The plaintiff appeared in person, and Mr. F. H. M'Coy for the defendant. Mr. M'Coy said that he was instructed to move for an adjournment for a fortnight, mainly upon the ground thah the defendant had recently suffered a fall from his horse, by which he had sustained injuries which incapacitated him from obeying the summons, living as he did at Waitahuna, ten miles from the Court. In support of this, the learned counsel put in a medical certificate; In further support of his motion, Mr. M'Coy contended that as both plaintiff and defendant resided at Waitahuna, and as there was a Resident Magistrate's Court frequently sitting there, it was vexatious for the plaintiff to sue out a summons returnable at Lawrence. The practice of the superior courts in 'England was adverse to piling on expenses in litigation, and he (the learned counsel) felt sure that this Court would follow that rule. Had the summons been made returnable at Waitahuna, the defendant would have been able to appear there, though wholly unable to travel ten miles to attend at Lawrence. His Worship said that although there was a sitting of the Court at Waitahuna occasionally, it was not usual to return many cases to it, because there was no clerk there to issue summonses, no forms, no acts, no books, and unless a magistrate carried a library with him, he could not be supposed to adjudicate upon any but the most trivial cases in such out-of-the-way places. As regards the other point —the accident— he would grant the adjournment upon security being given for the amount of the debt and costs. Mr. M'Coy said that under those circumstance he must move for a non-suit

upon the following grounds : — The first item in the account sued upon was "To balance due, £6 18s." Now, the 31st section of the R.M.s Act, 1867, provided most distinctly that a " true and explicit account" must be furnished. This "balance due" was no account at all, and he confidently moved for a non-suit. The plaintiff stated that on the date named in the account he had struck a balance with the defendent, and that balance was £6 18s as stated, as the defendent well knew. He had good reason to believe that the defendant was about to make away with his property in order to evade paying this debt. His Worship said that such might be the case, but the defendant was entitled to a full and particular account, and he would, under all the circumstances, offer the plaintiff the following alternative :—: — Either to adjourn the case for a few days, and serve a proper account, or to abandon the £6 18s, and proceed for the balance. After some consideration the plaintiff elected to accept the latter alternative. Mr. M'Coy stated that he was not instructed to defend further, and judgment was entered up for the balance, £13 12s 6d.