RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 851, 17 August 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, August 15. (Before J. Giles, Esq.,B.M.) Ann Lockyer was charged upon the information of Amelia Hayne, with having assaulted her child Fanny Hayne, on August sth. The assault having been proved, the defendant was Sued 20s. The latter representing that she had no immediate means of paying the fine, twentyfour hours were granted for such payment. CIVIL CASES. Johnstone v. Smith.—This was a claim for«£2s 2s Bd, for meat supplied. Judgment for the plaintiff by

default in the amount claimed and costs.

Suisted Brothers v. Pasco©.—Claim for £6 15s 4d. Previous to one of the plaintiffs being sworn in this case the usual demand was mado for the hearing fee; and on its not being immediately forthcoming, his "Worship stated that it was .the duty of plaintiffs to come prepared with the necessary funds. It was the duty of a person to see the clerk prior to the sitting of the court, and pay the necessary fees. Should any cases of delay arise in future out of the omission, the case would be put back to the bottom of the list, thus possibly entailing a delay of the whole day in obtaining adjudication.

Judgment was then given for the plaintiff in the amount claimed, and costs. '

Dick and Sea ton v. Matheson.— Claim for £l6 lis.

Mr Home appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Pitt defended, and took objection to the hearing of the case in the E. M. Court at Westport, the defendant being resident in the Brighton district, and the debt having been contracted there. The objection was something more than technical, as the defendant would have been enabled to produce witnesses had the case been tried in Brighton. His Worship thought that the case should have been tried at Brighton. Mr Home stated that the objection must fail, as the law admitted of the course which the plaintiff had adopted. He quite concurred with the view that as a rule any case should be taken into the nearest R. M. Court to the place in which the debt was contracted or the defendant resided; but there were circumstances in the present case which justified the plaintiffs in taking advantage of the law to suit their own convenience. The debt had been owing between four and five years, and the defendant had been applied to for the money, and, having stated his inability to pay, had had time granted him. Meanwhile the plaintiffs had closed business in Brighton, and had had great difficulty in tracing the whereabouts of the defendant.

His Worship stated that he had endeavoured to discountenance the practice, and should continue to do so, as it was open to much abuse. As the law was at present the Nelson SouthWest Goldfields were npt subdivided into districts. But it certainly could not be contemplated that a debtor should be sued from one extremity of the district to appear at the other in answer to a summons. It would be unjust to a debtor, supposing him to reside in Mohikinui, and to have contracted a debt there, to issue a summons against him for a case to be heard at Cobden.

Mr Home stated that his client was quite willing that the ease should be referred for hearing to the E. M. Court, Brighton, but they must decline to pay any costs. His Worship was doubtful whether, under the circumstances, he had the power to refer the case to another court.

Mr Pitt then consented to the case being proceeded with. John Seaton : I was trading in Brighton and elsewhere with John Disk, as butchers. My shopman supplied tho defendant and his party with meat. They were working as miners between Charleston and the White Horse Terrace. The supplies commenced in December, 1867, and continued until March 7th, 1868. Shortly after the latter date, I saw the defendant near to the shop. I asked him about the account. He said they were "duffered out," and that he would make it right some day. I have since made enquiry for the defendant but have been unable to find him until about a fortnight ago. I went to Brown's Terrace in search of him, and I also learnt that he was working near Candlelight, Charleston. By Mr Pitt: I did uot deliver any meat to the defendant, but I have been present when the shopman has. The defendant stated that he had never been presented with any account untill a fortnight ago, and had had no conversation with the plaintiff about the account. He never obtained any meat from the defendant or instructed any other person to do so on his account.

By Mr Home: I am quite certain that I never promised to pay the defendant. I am acquainted with the circumstances of the case. A man named John Grant is the person liable for the amount. He is a man of my sise, age, and general appearance. I was working in the claim with Grant, and I partook of meat, but I never ordered any of it. I left tho claim on February 2nd, as I had a better " show " at Brown's Terraee.

By the Bench: I give February 2nd as the date upon which I left the claim from general memory. His Worship gave jndgment for £8 198 6d; being the amount of items to February Ist, 1868, inclusive. Mr Home: I presume the judgment will carry with it the costs of court. His Worship: The judgment will be without costs, as it is my intention to discourage the practice of bringing case 3 into this court from a distant district, when they may be more conveniently heard in another court.

Mr Home: It would be well if your Worship would also discourage the practice of debtora lying perdus for years, and their unfortunate creditors being unable to discover them. His Worship: It is discretionary with the court to grant or withhold costs ; and I do not wish to hear any further argument upon the matter.