RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 2605, 23 March 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

« (Thursday.—Before Captain Jackson, B.M). Sunday Trading.—Judgment was given in the case brought against P. LeQuesne for the above offence, the defendant being finei , the sura of £4 and cost*. In several small debt cases judgment was given for tho plaintiff's for the amounts claimed. Denis Lees v. The Mator, Councillors and buhcjessks of this bohouoh of Hamilton , .—Mr Hay for plaintiff and Messrs Cotter and O'Neill for the defendants, churn £39 2s (Sd. Mr Hay in opening the case said that his client based his claim on the action of the Borough Council in passing a resolution doing away with the dog-tax during the month of January, 1889, during which time plaintiff was dog registrar for the Borough of Hamilton, therefore depriving plaintiff of his fees during that time, which ho estimated at £34 17s Cd, one-half the amount of registration fees collectable, £■"> 5s foes paid to Mr Hay for advice, <fcc, and £2 for personal travelling expenses in connection with the Ciise. — J. M. Gelling, J. S. Kdgecumbe. and J. Reid were examined, and all stated that the collars had not been delivered to the plaintiff at his demand. —The plaintiff was then examined at some length by Mr Hay, and he stated after demanding the collars from tho Town Clerk he went round the Borough and ascertained that there were lf)3 dogs in it, and it was for loss of half the registration fee on these dogs that he made tits claim, viz., 34 greyhounds and lurchers at 10s each, £17, and 110 other dogs at 2s (id each, £14 17s (id. This amount tie stated he could have collected during the month of January. Ho was always ready and willing to perform tho duties of dog registrar, but was prevented from doing so by not having the collars. Cross-examined by Mr C itter : Had been d<ig registrar for two years, and knew the Dog Registration Act of ISBO and ISS2, knew that 10s was the largest iimount that could be charged for any ono dug. Considered that he would have been acting wrongly h:id he not carried the resolution of the Council into effect, and therefore claimed half of £1, the tax imposed by the Council on lurchers and greyhounds. Did not now think that ho was entitled to half of the illegal charge. Did not collect any fees, as the Act had been suspended in the Borough during the month of January, and he had no collars. Did not try to get collars. About one dozen people asked him when he was coming round with collars, and he had to tell them that he had not got any. No one came to him at his office to registrar dogs in January. Was present at most of the meetings of the Council. Was present at meetings of 11th and 31st December, and heard the resolutions passed at then , . Did not knosv whether he made any remarks at thus? meetings. There were more dogs in the Borough this year than last year. This closed the casu for the plaintiff. No witnesses were called for the defence. In addressing his Worship, Mr H:iy said thnt from what lie gathered the defence which would be set up was a disreputable one, as it whs based on the fact that a resolution pa.ised by the Borough Council wiis an illegal one. It was clearly the duty of the Council to provide tho collars, if not under the Act, they had made it so by inserting a clause in the conditions olr.he plaintiff's appointment to that effect. The plaintiff had done all in his power to carry on his duties, but tho Council li'id taken away his remuneration by stating in his notice of dismissal tlint no dog tax would be collected in the Borough during January, ISB9. In reply to Mr Hay, Mr Cotter said tluit his clients admitted the appointment of the plaintiff as Dog Registrar and also the breach of contract in not supplying the plaintiff with collars, but it was for His Worship to decide as to whether any loss had been sustained by tho plaintiff through this breach. He claimed that no loss had been shown, as no persons had come to register their dogs as provided by tho Act. The plaintiff was not prevented from carrying out his duties as the Act of Registration was complete without the collar which was only an evidence of the registration. Hud any one come to register any dog and refused to pay the fee, then clearly the plaintiff would have, sustained a loss. His Worship reserved judgment until next Court day, Wednesday, 3rd March. FlUl'uY. Milxis and Ciiovou v. Badkaji.— The evidence of Miss Badlium, the defendant, and her witnesses Miss Thompson, Miss Redmond, Miss Peterson, and Mr N. R. Cox, was taken in this case for transmission to Auckland. It went to show that Milno and Choyce's representative had informed Mi::s Badham that the cost of a drii-.<iiiEf giiu-i) which she ordered was not to twc.cd £2 lO.s, and the lirm charged her K) 10. lid for it. Miss Thompson, Miss Redmond, and Mr Cox all concurred in statin;,' that tho article which was produced in court was not worth £2. The action was for £1 only. Miss Badham having paid what she considered justly due, but de fended the overcharge on principle.