RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 394, 26 September 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Fbiday, 25th Septembbe.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., 8.M., A. Stewart.

Esq., J.P., and M. Hay, Esq., J.P.)

Chu Que v. Oeeves. — Mr. M'Coy for the plaintiff j Mr. Henderson for the defendant. Charge of assault and battery, joined with an application that the defendant might be bound over to keep the peace. The defendant pleaded not guilty, justification, and self-defence. Mr. Henderson having raised an objection to' the information, which was over-ruled, Mr. M'Coy said that there was some ill-feeling on the part of Geeveß towards Chu Que, owing to an unsuccessful contract to carry a number of Chu Que's countrymen to Kaitangata. Geeves had since assaulted or threatened complainant, and on Wednesday, 16th September, met him near Shumate's hotel. Geeveß throw complainant off his horse, and further assaulted and. beat him. This was proved by the evidence of the complainant and a Chinaman, who saw the matter. Dr. Halley proved that complainant was considerably bruised. The Bench <wers' of opinion that an unprovoked assault had been committed. There did not appear to.be any necessity for binding over the defendant to keep the peace. Fined £3, cos.ts of Court, 95., and expenses, 215. ; in default, 14 days' hard labor in Lawrence Gaol.

M'Ooy v. The Corporation of the Town of Lawrence. — Mr. Henderson for plaintiff ; Mr. Copland for defendant. Mr. Carew delivered judgment in this case as follows : — The first objection to plaintiff's claim is that the bill of particulars is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 31, of the Resident Magistrate's Act of 1867 — that is, that it is sot 9 full and explicit statement of the cause of action. An objection of this description should have been raised at the commencement, and not at the close of the case ; but upon the merits, I am of opinion that it has no force, as there has been no difficulty in understanding : the cause of action and the rate of charges has not been disputed or brought in question. It appears that some years ago the plaintiff was retained as solicitor to the Corporation, not with any fixed remuneration, nor any settled duties ; but he was informed whenever the Corporation had need of his services, and he was then paid usual charges, There is not sufficient proof that the plaintiff was authorised to perform the services which are the cause of the action. It seems, however, that he received some instructions or promises from some of the Councillors, but in an irregular manner, which could not bind the Corporation. The plaintiff states that he is under the impression that he received instructions through, .the Town Clerk to prepare all the leases, but he is not so positive on ibis [point as is the Town Clerk, who

denies having given the instructions." I nov come to the second question raised for the de fence: that the execution of some of tin leases by the Corporation was not an acoep tance or appropriation of thenu This point to my mind, will not bear argument ; tb leases were prepared by plaintiff, and sent t< the defendant. The Corporation at firsl declined to accept them ; but subsequently by a resolution of the Council, determined to make use of any of the leases that could b< made available. The leases were left with the Corporation, and it has been proved that ten of them have been executed by the Corporation, andsome of the ten also by the lessees, and this is conclusive of their acceptance. It was argued by defendant's counsel that ho had proved either gross negligence, inadvertence, or grossjunskilf ulhiess, he would not say which, on the part of the plaintiff and that this led to the leases being valueless* but the evidence does not bear that construction. Had it been proved that owing to either of those causes that the plaintiff's services had been valueless, I have no doubt defendant would be entitled to a verdict. There has been an attempt to show that the plaintiff should have seen the leases executed and stampedjjbut the evidence proved that plaintiff by letter offered to attend to the completion of the leases if it was the wish of the Corporation, but pointed out that the Corporation could get the services rendered more cheaply by other means, and this it appears when too late the HCorporation attempted. ' I cannot see that there was anything in the conversation between tho late Mayor and the plaintiff to mislead as to the latest day for stamping the leases without payment of a heavy fine upon each lease. In tike first place the information then given by plaintiff was merely a conversation not a professional opinion, and the evidence shows by the telegram admitted to have been Bent by defendant to the agents in Dunedin he (the defendant) was aware that unless the leases reached the stamp office before that day they could not be stamped without pajment of the ! penalty. The leases Were forwarded hy coach , aud all depended upon the time of the arrival I of the ceach in Dunedin, and this was certainly not a question of law. I consider that plaintiff is entitled to receive for deeds of lease prepared by him and executed by defendant, as follows : — William Hayes, section 6, block XXXVII. ; William Milk, section 9, block XLIX. ; C. W. Adams, section 12, block V. ; George Walker, section 14, blftck XII.; James Hill, section 12, block XXIV. ; W. G. Anderson, Bection 3, block XXXVI. j Peter Robertson, section 16, block XXVIII. ; Peter Robertson, section 6, block XXVIII. ; William Hays, section 6, block XXVII. ; James Docherty, section 7, block XXVI. It has not been proved that plaintiff was retained to prepare the other leases, or that they have been accepted by defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for £21; costs of Court, 255. ; and professional costs, 42. M'Carthy v. Kitching.—Mv. M'Coy and Mr. Henderson for tho parties. Adjourned for four weeks. Ovdaillex. Clark.— Mr. Copland, for plaintiff, obtained adjournment to 9th October. Holmes v. Hayes.— Withdrawn j Mr. Gooday for plaintiff.