CAMBRIDGE. Friday.—(Before Mr H. W. Northeroft, R.M.) Civil Cases.

Waikato Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1751, 25 September 1883, Page 2

CAMBRIDGE. Friday.— (Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.) Civil Cases.

Hambijx v. Richakd Wright.— Claim £1 10s Gd. Judgment for plaintiif, with costs 19s. — Brown v. Goldston. — Claim £11 6s. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs £2 10s.— Jno. Goodfellow and Son v. Morton. — Claim £G 9s Bd. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs £2 3s. — Cambridge Highway Board v. A. Clements.— Claim £13 0s 3Jd. Mr Campbell for plaintiff, and Mr Hay for defendant. Mr Hay, in opening the case, apologised for Mr Clements not appearing a,t the last sitting of the court in answer to the summons. He had mistaken the date on the summons for the 17th, instead of the 7th. — Mr Campbell, who informed the court he had heard that Mr Clements was well awaie of the date of the summons, accepted the apology as made. — Mr Campbell proceded to open the case. The action was brought under the 29th section of the Rating Act.— Mr Hay applied to have the question of costs allowed to stand over, as there was no person in court allowed to receive such costs. . His Worship, he contended, had no jurisdiction in the matter, as there was was no plaintiff before the court. ,He contended that a corporate body must^ sue in its corporate^ name. , Mr Hay, then Drqce l ed§d\ tb ? show'ttiaf the , Cambridge CafytobelL dirQcte.cT his; l to ,tSe'i awK'Fsec'iion jjfe, the" .Rating v Act' •quoiiecl-w the', defendant's solicitor., 'This BeotioiKplauily, set' dowxisthati"jiny,persq|i' t

said were two different things. — His Worship decided to proceed with the case, reserving the' point raised by Mr Hay. — Mr Campbell having called the defendant, put in a map of the district, to which Mr Hay also objected, on the ground that no evidence was before the court to prove it wa3 a correct ntap. The < question having been arranged, the examination of the defendant was proceeded with. Evidence having been called, Mr Hay contended that a rate made before the passing of the act of 1882, or for a period ending not later than the 31st day of March, 1883, must be sued for under the old manner by the collector, and not the secretary. — Mr Campbell contended that section 12 must be read with section 29 of the act, and that any rate or part thereof applies not only to r.\te.s foi the current year, but to rates due at the time of the bringing of the action, subject to the two yeara' limitation. — Capt. McPhersou was examined at length as to the election of the board and the appointment of the chairman, whose name appeared on the minute-book, confirming the levying of the rate which was now being sued for. The plaintiff having neglected to put in the rate-book, his Worship held the deficiency to be fatal, and non-suited the plaintiff, with costs £2 2s.