DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3622, 24 September 1890, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

MASTEETON-WBDNESDAY. 3 J (Before His Honor District Judge "' Robinson,) T.J.James y. J. Ciialmerb. This wna a caso in which T. J. fames, butcher of Pahiatua, sued J. r£ Jlmlmers, sottlerofMakuri, for Iho I um of £IOO for malicious prosecution, Mr Tosawill, in conjunction with ilv Pownall, appeared for plaintiff, fl indMr Bunny, instructed by Mr jothurd, for defendant, tj A jury of four wns empanelled, of 6I irbom Mr A. Matthews whs chosen s , foreman. , f ( Mr Tosawill briefly explained tho n jase. . ■ Mr Bunny objected at this stago to ;o tho case proceeding, The defendmt bad l:eon sued as a resident of Malum, but na a matter of fact he resided in Woodville, The case was not therefore within tlio jurisdiction of this Court. The cause of action arose at Woodville, which was out of the jurisdiction of this Court, Sec- { tion 36 of the District Courts Act and v section 8i of the Resident Magistrate's / Act were identical in effect and eup- ) ported his contention, His Honor j bad no power to hear tho case f nor the jury to try, The fi provisions of section 36 and not „ been repealed by the Act of 1889. i Further,^tho conditions of the claim, ( as required by the Act, had not been < written across the summons. Again, ] the summonses had not been properly served. His last objection was that | the plaintiff had ;rio. cause of action > on the face of the proceedings. Tho ( particulars of claim did not set out ] what wrong had been committed. ■ This was an essential point. MrTosswillsaid in regard to the first objection of Mr Bunny he had to refer to a former decision of His Honor, Unless His Honor reversed his decision he would not agnie the point. . Mr Bunny pointed out that in the case cited the question of an affidavit of jurisdiction was novoi' raised. It was only a question of. service of summons. Mr Tosswill called the attention of the Court to section 3of the Act of 1888. A lengthy argument here ensued on tho points raised, and tho objections wero eventually over-ruled. The case then proceeded. Thomas Joseph James, butcher, carrying on business at Mangatainoka, deposed that he know defendant, Remoinbered.3oth June last,on which dato defendant came to see him between 10 and 11 o'clock in tho morning. Defendant said he had lost a red and white steer which was branded "H" on tho near rump, and .that ho had been told the, beast had been driven into his yard and killed. His reply was that ho had killed no beast branded "H" on the near rump. Ho then saia" show mo the hide and I'll be satisfied," Invited him inside and while he was in tho room he hoard ahorseman on tho road and wen* to see him. He turned out to be a boy. in his employ. Gave him a message and went in again. Was | attending to a fire at one end of the room, and on turning round found the , defendant was gone, Went outside ; and found the defendant going towards ' bis slaughterhouse. Followed liim, 1 and they both got to the slaughter--1 house about tho same time. As soon . sb he got there Chalmers saw some , hides outside and said "Aro these all , the hides you havel" Replied that , they were all about there and opened i a hido at his request, In fact he 1 opened them all in succession. His i butcher and. slaughterman, Harding, ' was present, together with a boy ' named Barnes, On boing referred to, ' the butoher said tho hides were all I there. They afterwards found, howj ever, that there was another hide on i the floor of the slaughterhouse, the ■ door of which was open. Opened out 3 the hide and thoroughly inspected it, ' and Mr Chalmers seemed to think he J bad got the right one at last. Pound the brand on the rump, but could not make it out distinctly, It was, how- , ever, on the off side of the ramp, and B this was not the side on which s Chalmers beast was branded, CMJ mers appenred rery vexed that the i hide was branded wrongly. D (Left Sitting).