RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.
(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq. , R.ftf., and Alex. Stewart, Esq., J.P.)
Thursday, 12th Oct.
Barnett v. Stewart. — Claim, £1 14s 6d. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed and costs.
Cooper v. Geeves. — Mr. Copland appeared for plaintiff, and Mr, Gooday for defendant.
This was an action to recover balance of account for services performed by plaintiff as drayman to defendant. Evidence having been taken, and counsel heard on both sides, judgment was given for £6 8s and costs.
Clark v. Glendinning. — Claim, Ll2, for board and lodging, and cash lent. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs of Court, and half a guinea professional costs — immediate execution to issue.
Sheddan v. Lancaster. — This case, the particulars of which have already been published in these columns, was adjourned on the 21st ult to enable plaintiff to secure the attendance of Mr. Warden Wood, and the records of the Tapanui Magistrate's Court.
Mr. Copland appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendant.
Mr. J. N. Wood, R.M. and Warden, sworn, deposed — I sit as Resident Magistrate at Tapanui in the absence of Mr. Maitland. The Court is held there once a month. I remember the 6th of 1U ay. On that day the case Cameron v. Sheddan came before me. The information, summons, and notes relating to the case have since been lost, and although strict search has been made, they have not been recovered. The Court is held in a public building, and as all papers have to be removed to the Camp when the Court closes, it is probable the documents referred to may have been lost while being so removed. No Clerk of the Court has been gazetted for Tapanui, but Constable Purdue is authorised to attend as actingclerk. In the case referred to, heard before me at Tapanui, John Cameron, manager for Dalgetty, Nichols, & Co., prosecuted Sheddan for driving seventy head of cattle through Run 178 without having given notice as required by tho 19th section of the Cattle Ordinance, 1864. The defendant pleaded guilty of driving the cattle,' but said he had been informed^ by his employer, Lancaster, that the requisite notice had been given. Mr. M'Cny objectgd to Mr. Wood's evidence being received, as it was given from memory. .
The point having been argued by. the Bench and Mr. M'Coy, it was decided that the witness's evidence should be accepted. The Bench, however, made a note of Mi*. M'Coy's objection,
Witness resumed — The first witness examined was Cameron, who stated that he had received no notice that the cattle would pass through the run at the time they did, but Lancaster had written to him to say that cattle would go through at a date previous to that at which they arrived on the run. Sheddan was fined Ll7 10s ; costs of Court, 6s 6d ; and expenses, 42s ; in default, two months' imprisonment in H.M. Gaol, Dunedin. The fine was paid — I produce the receipt. Lancaster did not appear. The other witness examined was M'Kay, Dunrobin Hotel.
Sheddan, being sworn, was examined by Mr. Copland — I remember the case Cameron v. Sheddan, heard at Tapanui, in which I was defendant. When I received the summons, I read it, and gave it to Lancaster, who also read i*. I confirm Mr. Wood in what he has stated.
Mr. M'Coy objected to the latter part of witness's evidence, and the Bench made a note of the objection.
Examination continued — Lancaster said he was the guilty party, and should have been summoned, but he neither offered to assist me in defending the case, nor to pay the fine inflicted upon me ; neither did he appear at the Court. I stated the facts of the case to the Court, and witnesses were examined in the matter. On the judgment of the Court, had I notpaidthefinelshouldhavehadno alternative but to gotogaol. ItoldLancaster thatlexpected him to repay me, buthe wished to let the matter stand over for a time, as he thought I had been improperly fined, and said he would try and get the money back from Government. On applying to him afterwards, he said he would not pay me until I summoned hhh.
The Court adjourned, and resumed at half-past two o'clock.
Mr. M. Hay was examined, but no material evidence was elicited.
The case for the plaintiff being closed, Mr. M'Coy rose to address the Court for the defence, and pleaded not indebted. The matter had. been treated as a tort, but he submitted that Sheddan had not been summoned iov trespass merely, but for infringing the Cattle Ordinance, which was an offence against the Crown. Even if it were a tort, Sheddan, having been adjudged in a Magistrate's Court to pay a fine, could not recover from Lancaster. (The learned counsel quoted authorities on the point.) Instead of being a tort, however, it was a quasi criminal matter, in which the Court had no jurisdiction. There was an old maxim, "Anybody but the King can do anything he pleases, if not forbidden. 1 ' The Act did not impose any fine for not giving notice, but for driving cattle without notice, and the person who drove them was finable ; if not finable then, the fining of Sheddan made him finable directly. If Sheddan got drunk while driving the cattle, and was fined, he might as well call upon Lancaster to pay the penalty of drunkenness, as to expect him to pay the other. The learned counsel concluded his defence by contending that it was a qvasi criminal matter, and that the plaintiff had no remedy.
Mr. Copland, in roply, said that if Lancaster had thought Sheddan had been improperly fined, it was his duty to have set the matter right ; but it appeared to him that it had ended as Lancaster wished. Lancaster had given orders which had resulted in certain costs, and he should have paid them, lie should and did know what was right to do regarding notice, and he alone was to blame. All that he asked was that the money paid by Sheddan for the use and benefit of his employer should be returned ; he was entitled to this, as he had only followed his employer's instructions .
The Bench reserved their decision until Monday.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TT18711019.2.9.2
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 193, 19 October 1871, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,048RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE. Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 193, 19 October 1871, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.