RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume XII, Issue 1476, 1 August 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Chbistchttbch—July 31. [Before C C Bowen, Esq., R.M.] Shradrach Clements was charged with being drunk and incapable, and as it was not his first offence he was fined 10s. The following were some of tha debt cases over £20 and under £100 set down for hearing to day:— Boag v. Seifort—Claim £49 8s fid. Judgment by default for full amount and costs Thiol, Mytton and Co. v. Bulmer —Claim £40 2s 6d. Judgment by default for full amount and costß.

Pavitt v. Leith—'Claim £92 9s. Judgment by default for full amount and costs. Sheppard v. Hack—Claim for an lOU £56. Mr Garrick for plaintiff, and Mr Wynn Williams for defendant.

Plaintiff stated that he got an lOU from defendant to secure an acceptance which he (plaintiff) had given on defendant's account He found that the defendant was parting with all his goods, and he now wished to secure himself. He stated that the acceptance in question was not due until September next.

Defendant stated that he got the acceptance from plaintiff to raise money on it ; that he got it discounted, and gave the 10D in question in case anything was wrong when the bill was due. The lOC was not to be paid until the bill became due. The bill is due on 24th September.

John Hart stated that the defendant gave the plaintiff the lOU as collateral security for his taking up the bill when it became due

The Resident Magistrate said that the plaintiff did not seem to know what an lOU. was. It waS not a negotiable instrument; it was merely evidence of a debt. He did not think it was intended to be paid until the acceptance was due. He would therefore give judgment for defendant, with costs.

Davis v. Young—Claim for £100, damages sustained by plaintiff by reason of the defendant's illegal distress upon the goods of the plaintiff, in his dwelling-house, Gloucester street, Christchurch. Mr Garrick appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Wynn Williams for the defendant.

Mr Garrick called the plaintiff, Wm.'Davis, who deposed that he had gone to Mr Wynn Williams's office to offer to take the Criterion hotel. The rent then spoken of was £350 a year, which he said was too high. From a conversation he had afterwards with Mr Thiel, he went to Mr Williams again and told him he heard he had offered the hotel at £200. Mr Williams said " Yes." Whereupon he (plaintiff) said be would take it at that. Mr Williams said he would bind him by a very strict lease, and that he must not give a bill of sale over anything." Mr Williams said there was some baok rent due on the premises under the lease. He (plaintiff) said he had nothing to do with the back rent. He would take the house free of all liabilities, and that Mr Williams must get the back rent from the estate of Theil, Mytton and Co. He understood he had taken the house for three years. He refused to sign the lease when he found there was ground rent included in the lease, exclusive of the £200 a year. Mr Williams opposed his license at the annual licensing meeting. He got the license, but had never signed a lease. A sale was effected for the back rent, and he now claimed the damages laid.

A. Louisson was called, and stated that he recollected a conversation with plaintiff, Mr Wynn Williams, and himself, about the Criterion hotel. Mr Williams said that plaintiff should not be held liable for back rent, and that he was to have the hotel for £200 a year. There was also a conversation about the license being transferred.

W. D.: Barnard said he called on Mr Williams to ask the rent of the Criterion hotel, and he told him £200 a year. This closed the plaintiff's case.

Mr Wynn Williams then gave evidence. He said that be was agent for the defendant. The plaintiff was a trespasser in the Criterion hotel; he had no right there. He had let the plaintiff the house at £200 a year, but he would not sign the lease, and he had told plaintiff that if he did not do so he would distrain upon his goods for the rent. He had • •pposed the license being issued to plaintiff, but it had been granted. The lease had never been signed, and he had distrained for the rent.

The Resident Magistrate said that it ap peared to him that plaintiff oould not recover ; there was only an incohate bargain for a lease: which had never resulted in anything, and it was clear the plaintiff had no standing ground. He must give judgment for defendant, with costs.

Rosewarne v. Kingdom—Claim £75, for rent; Mr Garrick for plaintiff, and Mr Hanmer for defendant. After hearing some evidence, the Resident Magistrate gave judgment for the full amount claimed, with costs.

Barnard v. Burke - Claim £45, for damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the lefendant having, as bailiff of the Resident Magistrate's Court at Christchurch, arrested one George Marshall by virtue of a warrant of commitment issued under the hand and seal of Charles Christopher Bowen, Esquire, Resident Magistrate, Christchurch, and dated 31st January, 1866, in a suit in the said Resident Magistrate's Court, Christchurch, wherem the now plaintiff was plaintiff, and the said George Marshall was defendant, and suffered the said, George Marshall to escape. Mr Garrick uppeared for plaintiff, and Mr Joynt for the defendant.

Mr Garrick called Thomas B. Bain, who stated that he was clerk to tha Resident Magistrate's Court, Christchurch, and produced the papers connected with the case of Barnard v. Marshall, aB also the warrant of commitment in the case. W. E. Burke was sworn, and stated that he recollected having the warrant in question given to him for execution. He handed it to a man in his employ. George Marshall, jun., deposed-Said he was arrested on the warrant at the suit of the plaintiff, that he was brought to town and saw the defendant, who said the cart had gone to Port, and he could not be sent in that night. He (Marshall) then said he would go down and get his father's cart, and drive in himselt with the bailiff. He then went with the man employed by defendant to bis father's, and went in at the front door, leaving the man outside. He (Marshall) walked straight through the house and out at the back door, and escaped. He kept out of the road until he got his protection, which was one week after he was arrested. He could not have paid the debt when he was arrested, as he was insolvent then. The defendant never had possession of his body. W. D. Barnard deposed—He never got any proceeds from the judgment he had against Marshall. He denied that defendant had ever told him soon after Marshall* escape that if he was going to bring an action he had better do so at once. This closed the plaintiff's case.

Mr Joynt called W. E Burke, who stated — That he had empbyed :i man named Bolton, to execute the warrant, and that he had allowed Marshall to escape ; that he soon after that discharged him, and tried by every possible means to trace Marshall, but could not find him. Bolton had since left the place, and he had never heard anything of this action until the other day, nearly seventeen months since the affair occurred, although lie had told plaintiff at the time that if he wanted to follow up the matter he had better do so at once.

After hearing counsel on both sides, the Resident Magistrate said that th*» responsibilities of the bailiff were very great, and there was neither any law-giving powers to such officers nor was there any law protecting them. The system was in a very loose state, but he thought that it would be remedied at this session of the Assembly. He would hold, however, that the bailiff, if he employed any person under him, would be the responsible party. There might be a good cause of action or there might not, but he thought that the lapse of time between the occurrence and the bringing of the action was quite un reasonable. He must take the analogy of the County Courts at home, and he there found that one month only was allowed to elapse before an action was brought against any officer of the Court. He had taken great pains to look up the case, and he felt bound to give judgment for the defendant, on the ground that the plaintiff had allowed so long a time to elapse before he brought his action. Judgment was entered up for the defendant, with costs. Mr Garrick gave notice of appeal.