RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 145, 17 November 1870, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Eg., R.M.) Thursday, N'otsmbbk 10. Fraser v. M'Kae. — Claim, 15s. Setx > -J 11-J JVAIgV.... . T/isp^clor »1 *^ '.usances v. Tr is; : *.f ia'e .Mi. "G rrf ii n foT .i'l. >" irrj"^ uumnccfto tXit'i m I>O3S Plic. Wismis-. v, haun: V» =•-■'? ib'cci t o n'inoi t >t"<-»"" No appearance or uacuuv,«. for his apprehension issued. Leslie v. Lorry (both of Waitahuna) — Corry wa3 charge. I with having used threatening and violent language to .Mr? Leslie, of Waitahuna, on 10th November. The parties it seems are neighbours, and the pigs of Leslie were in the habit of tresspassing and doing damage to the property of defendant. On the day in question one of plaintiff's pigs was within the fence of defendant, lie follow ad it and shot it near the house of plaintiff. When the shot was tired at the pig, the plaintiff was standing wit iin four yards of the pig, and she got frightened (he using violent language at the time) and she sought to bind him over to keep the peace. The Bench remarked that, from the evidence adduced, there appe rjd to I c some unpleasantness existing between the parties, but the matter did not assume the aspect sought to be put on it by plaintiff. He thought that it del'enJant was bound over to keep the p acts for two months that it would meet the circumstances of the case. lie was accordingly bound for two mon r hs himself o:id another in the sum of £2J each, each party to pay own costs Mr. Copland appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Gooday for defendant. There was another charge of a similar character v. defendant by plaintiff, but it was withdrawn. Keen v. Lawrence Corporation. — Claim, £15, being amount of hi 3 account for services rendered as assessor to the Corporation. Mr. Gooday appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for Corporation. Mr. 3* ' Coy stated that they did not recognise the claim, as ihe plaintiff never was tiie servant of the Corporafion. He acknowledged that plaintiff had done a certain work for the ( 'orporation, but his appointment was illegal, as before he could have a loevs standi in Court, his appointment should bear the seal of the Corporation ; and as this was not the case, the Corporation did not recognise the claim. It was a well-known maxim in law that Corporations have neither body nor soul, and that the seal is their mouth and hands. The learned gentleman quoted Addison on Torts and the Otago Municipal Corporation < nlinancs in support o? his contention. He did not deny that plaintiff had a remedy against somebody, but not against the Corporation. All matters of any importance belonging or appertaining to the Council must bear the seal of the Council, and the assessor being an important functionary of said Corporation, clearly his appointment should be under seal. The Ord"nance specially provide"* for f-is by name. Even if the who c of the councillors, as a body, concurred in any important matter in writing, still without the seal being attached, the concurrence was valueless. He admitted that the appointment of day labourers and other petty officers, who might be causally employed, did not require the seal, but in the case before the Court, the valuator was one of the most important offices, and the seal of the Council to the appointment was indespensible.

Mr. Gooday contended that the appointment did not require the seal, as contended for by his learned friend ; and he quoted legal authorities to show that r he seal was not in all cases necessary. He confessed that the Corporation of Lawrence was a pecnliar one, and that on this occasion he had not only to contend against the Corporation, but against every i.idivilual member thereof. Air. Keen had done the work, an.l he was entitled to his charge. The previous assessment was in so confused a state that Mr. Keen was elected for the express purpose of remedying this evil, bringing order out of confusion. Mr. M'L'oy, in answer to Mr. Gooday's argument, saitl that he had no doubt that the cases quoted were correct, but it was well known that in England the practise in nviny ca«es di T r*A, as many of the chart jr* o'Ei l".s>. C >rp jr. to s yrs c an- • itjuaied, and ag oii deal ot taeir business Wc\s done in accordance with timehonoured customs ; but in New Zealand and other colonies the chaiters were of a recent date, and custom had not yet ruled. The Bench remarked that tl:e valuator was certainly an important of C 3 of the Corporation, and specially ment oned in th j ( )rdinance, a d, being so, here wei c good reasons lor greater formality. His assessment could be legally enforced, and hence the reason for strictly conforming to the Ordinance. Cut tiie matt r presented it-elf ia another ligh ; if he rec )vered the sum now sued for, his appointment was nevertheless imperfect. The assessment would consequently be illegal, and could not legally be recovered He would, however, consider the cases quoted, and .ive his decision on an early date. At present his impressions were against the plaintiff.