RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. YESTERDAY.—[Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., B.M.]

Waikato Times, Volume XV, Issue 1297, 21 October 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. YESTERDAY. — [Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., B.M.]

Breach of the Borough Bye-laws. Edward Lake was charged with this offence on the 13th in&t., by leaving his horses in Victoria-street without being under proper control. — The Sergeant stated that he saw Mr Lake getting out at Mr K. Hill' 8 ; he was certainly not away a minnte when they bolted. — Mr Lake stated that he had only left the horses a minute. — His Worship ordered the defea- ' dant to pay the costs of tho oase, 17s.

Civil Side. Colemun v. Green. — Mr Hay for the 1 plaintiff. — Judgment for plaintiff for full amount (£3 <3s) and costs). Small and Coafces v. George Kelly. — Mr ; Hay for plaintiffs.— Claim £3 6s 2d.~ • Judgment for plaintiffs with, costs. Colpman v. J. B.mer, claim £16 4s JHd. —Mr Hay for the plaintiff and Mr O'Neill for the defendant. — Defendant was put in the box and admitted having received the goods mentioned in the bill, but said he had paid the money at different times to different, parties. — John Coleman deposed that he had only received £7 from the ' defendant, which was on the 3rd uf November. His f wo brothers and Tristam and Fleming were authorised to receive money. i Mr. O'Neill here handed in a leceipt for i £7 f-igned by Fleming on the oth May. Thp witness said the bill he sued upon . did not include the items, payment of which that receipt acknowledged. Mr 0 Neill handed in two other receipts for £7 e-ieh, remarking that the particui lors of the plaintiffs claim had evidently > not been properly made out. Mr. Hay consented to take a nonsuit. Plaiutiff was accordingly nonsuited with costs. Ooates v. Whcelen, claim £1 14s 6d — Mr Hay for the plaintiff — judgment for 1 amount and costs.

The Road Board Case. Barton v. Day claim £S for i at 's alleged to be due to the Newcastle Highway Board . Mr Hay and Mr O'Neill, appeared for the plaintiff and Mr S. Heslceth for the defendant. Mr O'Neill opened the case by stating that the plaiutiff collector for the Newcastle Highway Board, sued the defendant for the amount of his rates upon certain allotments in the district. The action was laid under the 30th section of the Rating Act. He called C. J. W. Barton who deposed that he was collector to the Board. The defendant was liable for rates. He had served notice on the defendant arid had allowed fourteen days to elapse before he had taken the present action. The letter produced notified his appointment as collector. Mr Hesketh objected that the letter ws>h merely an instrument signed by the chairman, whereas it was necessary that the collector should be appointed by the Board. Mr H.iy «ai<l the objection would easily be met, and handed in the minutes of the meeting at which the appointment was made. Mr Hesketh asked if His Worship would allow him to make any objection at the close of the plantiff's case. It would be fairer to his client. Mr Hay objected, and His Worship said he could not allow that to be done. Mr Heskrth said it would shorten the case considerably if the plantifF's counsel would fiist of all publish tie exist nee of the Board. Mr O'N'^ll said everything mush l>e presumed to be in order until the contrary was proved. Witness continued : A notification h'ul been inserted in the Waikato Tiuk-* oiling the aunual meeting" of ratep'iyer.and at which the following 1 were elected member:-— Major Wilson, Messrs Stone, Carpenter, rjorri-on. and Lang 1 . At a meeting afterwards Major Wilson wa, elected Chairman. The various Highway Acts, ordinances and gazettes were put m as evidence. Witness continued : The rates ha 1 bjpn paid. Cross examined. He ha I bo^n appointed (Secretary and Collector to the Board, which had been elected under the Highways Act 1861. Believed it was the duty of the Chairman or the Secretary to report the election of the Board to some one in authority. He had heard some lumours about this Board being elected. Mr Hay objected to this examination. Mr Hesketh said he merely wished to .show that hi.s client was not liable. His Worship .said it appeared to him to be simply a matter of debt. This Avas not the place nor the time to discuss the matter of the legality of the Board. Mr Hesketh thought he should be allowed to prove that the Board was not legally elected. His Woi^hip thought not. It was simply a debfc ca.se. Mr Hesketh admitted this, but thought it was only right that the plaintiff in a debt case should prove his claim. Cross-examination continued : Witness heard that another Board had been elected under the Local Elections Act. Did not know if the Act was in force in the Newcastle district. Had seen the proclamation purporting to bring it into force. ( 'Gazette put in). Ke-examined : He had received intimation that the proclamation was invalid. Mr Hesketh objected to any evidence tending to attack the proclamation which, so long as it had no informality on the face of it, was good until set aside. He proceeded to quote authorities to show that Crown grants and judgments of the Supreme Court, however obtained, were good until set aside. Mr Hay said the plaintiff would admit all that the Magistrate was competent to receive or reject any evidence he thought fit. His Worship said if the defence could prove that the proper steps had been taken to bring the Local Elections Act into force, he would take the proclamation as evidence. Mr Hesketh wished His Worship to take a note that he (the learned counsel) contended that the proclamation was good and valid, if it appeared to be so on the face of it, unless it be set aside or rescinded, and that the effect of such proclamation was to bring into force the Regulation of Local Elections Act, 1876, in the Newcastle Highway District from the loth July, 1880, and also that His Worship had overruled his contention. The Court then, adjourned for lunch.

Qnreßuming, X Mr Hay said he presumed the queation was whether or not the proclamation could be accepted as evidence. His Worship said it was. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Hesketh again applied to put the proclamation in as evidence. His Worship said it did not pertain to the present case. Mr Hesketh called The plaintiff, who deposed that he had inserted a notice in the Waixaxo Times, calling the annual meeting, but could not say whether he had been explicitly instructed by the Board to do so. Cross-examined by Mr Hay : No one objected, and the members of the Board attended the meeting 1 so called. Mr Hesketh then addressed the Bench, pointing out that it was the desire of his client to have the matter settled once and for all, and he was prepared to abide by the decision of His Worship. He wished therefore that the Bench had allowed the whole case to come before the Court. His Worship said there was another way to do that, under the Empowering Act. He could not go into the matter today. Mr Hesketh said he merely wished to show that his client desired to act straightforwardly. He could have wished that the other side had allowed him to go into the matter fully. As, however, they would not, all he could do was to resist the claim as strenuously as he could. He raised several (objections of a technical nature, which were overruled by His Worship. Mr Hesketh then proceeded to defend the validity of the proclamation. He said a meeting had been duly convened, by giving two or three days notice, at which it was decided to bring* the Local Elections Act into force. The decision was forwarded to the Government, and the proclamation inserted into the Gazette. Under this Act an election was held, which resulted in the return of Mr Day and four others. It seemed to him that if the members of the Board now suing had been elected, for they were nominated, nothing would have been heard about the matter ; but they were evidently doubtful about their election, and had called a meeting under the Highways Act to make sure. He then called Cornelius Day, the defendant, who deposed that a meeting had been held to bring the Local Elections Act into force, by giving two days notice, and that an eU-ction had been held under the Act. Mr Hay coutended that before the Local Elections Act came into force proceedings must necessarily be taken under the Highways Act, which required that all meetings of ratepayers should be convenoil upon 14 day's notice. Mr Hesketh argued that when once proceedings were taken touching the Local Elections Act, they must be regulated by that Act, which specified no time in regard to calling meetings. His Worship held "that the words " duly convened" in the 3rd section of the Local Elections Act inferred that proper notice should be given, and held that such notice could not be given under | U days. He therefore ruled that the proclamation could not be accepted as evidence. Mr Hesketh said he would in that i event leave the matter in His Worship's hands. The Magistrate delivered judgment for plaintiff without ensts. Atr O'Neill mido application for the Board books. His Worship said he would not make any order to that effect, as it yet remained to be proved who constituted the Board. The police Mib-ecpently handed the bnok^ over to Mr B.mou. The Court then ro.se.