JUSTICE'S JUSTICE. ♦ Kirikiriroa Road Boa -d v. Mullions.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1899, 6 September 1884, Page 3

JUSTICE'S JUSTICE. ♦ Kirikiriroa Road Boa -d v. Mullions.

to Tin: EDiroK. Siu. -In your issue of the 4tli instant you give a shoit repot t of the above case which is scat cely sufficient to convey to your leaders a ptoper uiulei standing ot the question at issue, which is of con siilerablo importance to local governing bodies and the tatopayeis generally With your pei mission 1 will state the ease in .is few words as possible. In Jinie last year Mr 11. Mulhons was sued for rates due on lots 152 and 45, Kni kitiioa His solicitoi asked the ca&e to he dismissed v>n the gionnds that the bankinplcy cotnfc had disehaiged all debts owing by defendant, and the case w.is dismissed without costs Subse (juently the plaintiff asked foi and ob tamed a reheaung, on the ground that the defendant had not included in his schedule the phmtill as a auditor. The case was heaid on the 20th August, when unfortunately the Jl M. w is absent, and Mossts \Y. A. Gtaham and J. Kno\ picsuled. I may hcie state that in addition to his foimer plea, Mr Mullions now pleaded that he was not indebted. The issues then submitted to the magistrates weie two, vi/: (1) Did Mr Mullions' bankiuptcy exoneiatc him from payment of C 2 lOs, two yiais' rates ; (2) was he an occupier within the moaning of The Haling Act, 1882? To have time, Mr Mullions admitted the technical evidenu which included the demand or " paitieu]ar<.," and I would ask you to take note at this point, that at no time dining the healing was any objection taken to or refc-ience made to the " pat tieu tats." In support of his contention that Mr Mullions' act of bankruptcy had not cleaied him of the debt, the plaintifl quoted sections 27, 98, 183, 186, JOl, Debtois and Cicditois Act, IS7O. section 10, Debtors and Ci editors Act, IS7B, and sub section 6 of section 4, Fiaudulent Debtors Act, 1878, which provide that should a bankiupt fail to comply wi'h the piovisions of these acts, his disohaige shall not avail him against future proceedings. With reference to "occupation" the plaintiff proved that defendant had been in occupation for more than six years ; that he had paid rates on the propetty for the year IS7S to 1881, and that less than two months ago he had tendeml payment of rates due for the year ended 31st Match. This closed the plaintiff's cisc. The defendant on being sworn stated m lefeience to the occupancy question (the finst question was not touclel on;, that he was an occupier m suffeiancc that he had no lease, and was therefoie not an occupier within the meaning of the act. He added, tegatding lot 40, that he had ceased to own it since 1573 He was asked by the plaintiff if lie would positively and distinctly swear tint on no occasion since 1573 had he stated by word of mouth or in writing, that lot 43, Kuikhiroi was his property. The defendant said lie would so swear. The plaintiff asked the bench to paiticnlaily note the statement thus positively made, and called Mr Knk, the cletk of the District Couit, whopiodueerl the schedule filed by Mr Mullions m ISB3 or the latter pait of ISS2, wherein he stated, and in the presence of Mr John Knox, J. i"., he made affidavit and swoie that lot 4.1 Kui Lii it oa was his propeity, and that as an asset it was worth £100. I then lequested the bench to older the committal of the defendant for wilful and cotrupt peijuiy, but they took no notice of the request. Judgment was eventually defeiied till the 3rd .September. On that date Mr Gtaham, as the seniot justice, gave the decision. He said that "after mature consideiatton the court had ai lived at the conclusion that the paiticulais were insufficient, and that the plaintiff must be non suited, with costs." I need scarcely tell your readers that I heaid the judgment with utter suipiise, the question of "particulars" never having been raised or submitted to the couit, and to the two questions which weie being ttied Mr Graham nevei oven alluded to. I will leave the public to make their own comments. I have no personal feeling in the matter, and it is with gieat reluctance that I ask you in the inteiests of tiuth and common-sense justice to gi\ e full publicity to the foiegoing particulars. Allow me in conclusion to say a word anent the act of perjuiy. Mr Giaham waa good enough to say that I wished the bench to do that which I shrank from doing myself. Permit me to itifot in Mr Graham that if he will refer to section 312 of the Justices ot the Peace Act he will find that it was his duty to older action to be taken, and no part of my business. He may say that he did not consider that the statr ment (untruthful) made by the defendant was material to the questions at issue, in answer to which I would ask leave to lvply that his statement made before Mi Knox was matciial to the issue of the question re bankruptcy, and the assertion that he had not since 1873 stated that lot 45 was his, was very material to the question of his "'occupancy," the two questions upon which the couit was asked to decide, but which it entirely, and without reason ignored. — I am, &c, Jas. McPherso> t .