[Advertisement.] THE CASE COYLE v. McDONALD.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XVII, Issue 1438, 24 September 1861, Page 3

[Advertisement.] THE CASE COYLE v. McDONALD.

To the Editor of tlie Soutiwn Cross. Sik, — If the fountain of justice becomes impure, society will have reached to that state which calls loudly upon all well-wishers of law and order and the common weal to use every legitimate effort to effect a radical cure, aud if possible to clear away such impurity both root and branch One of the most essential instruments for the accomplishment of such, a desirable object is a free, truthful, and independent public press. If the public piess becomes tainted, by favour, party, or sinister interest — that is, if m its reports of the proceedings of our courts of justice, they be allowed to be gaibled or pei verted just to serve a particular purpose, at a paiticular time, by giving a lattle bit of an impoit ant case and that composed more of error than truth, and by leaving out the main features of the case as it was argued by the counsel and the court — if this can be done with impunity, we aie very far gone in the wrong direction — we shall soon arrive at that state when we might just as well live under the dominion of the Sublime Porte, or meekly, patiently, and with lamb« hke docility crouch under a Russian czar, as live under the mere mockery, as a subject, of the once proud, libeity-loving, and ever fieedom-protecting Great Britain. Is all this to become a mere sham — an empty sound — a delusion instead of a reality ' Having been much aggrieved at the decision of the district judge in the case " Coyle v. McDonald;" and still more paiticulaily so at the one-sided, very unfair, and skeletonlike leport which appeared in the New Zealander of Saturday last, I beg to take this opportunity, through you, of laying my case before the public in vindication of my own conduct, and also to describe the conduct of my prosecutor or persecutor, whichever you like, and thus leave the morality, the equity, and the justice of it to the verdict of an impartial public tribunal. The community at large are emphatically bound to consider that when a wrong is done to one of its members, when one is attempted to be absolutely crushed by lepe.ited expensive and aggravating processes, there is doubtless a serious injury done to the whole ; as it is impossible to tell who next may not be treated in a sinnlar way. In thus laying my case before an impaitial public, I feel peifectly satisfied that I have only to make the points of it known and understood to ensiue a general concurrence in the opimon that I have gieat cause of complaint. The New-Zealandefs leport of it would lead the public to imagine that the case was heard, and a decision given upon it at once ; wheieas at its very commencement my attorney laised a legal point, as to whether a case similai in all its features to a former case already decided upon, could lawfully be entei tamed a second time by the same Court ; and the Neiu Zealander omits to inform the public how the judge managed at a subsequent day to get over this technical difficulty, which he observed lie would take time to consider, and give his decision upon, on a future day. The Neio-Zcalander states that — " It appeared that in Apiil, 1856, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a partneiship to supply the Comunssanat with firewood, each paifcner to furnish half the money expended, and a horse-team and a man." However clear this may appear to the New-Zealander, it is, neveitheless, positively untiue, as no partneiship either of a verbal or of a written character was enteied into between the plaintiff and the defendant, consequently no agieement of that kind could have been made ; while on the contiary, on the Ist of April, 1856, the day on which the contiact commenced, I had aheady 505 tons of firewood at the bariacks, and between 70 and 80 tons on the beach. The only agieement which I ever had with Coyle was a verbal one, to the effect that he should cait wood for me fiom the boats to the barracks, or to any part of the City at the rate of 2s 10 id per ton. The New-Zea-lander states " that plaintiff leceived no money on account of the profits after October, 1856, in which month he received £20, and on December 18th, when he asked defendant for some money, lie was told to go about his busmess, that he was not a partner at all." Now this is untiue. The amount which I paid to Mrs. Coyle on the Bth or 9th of November, in Sirs. Taylors, Queen street, was £39 10s. 7-jd, being the price of caitmg 275 tons, at 2s. 10.\d. The money was paid for woik done. Coyle was dischaiged from further employment on the 19th of November, because he had been many times absent and theiefoie neglecting his duty. He had, indeed, been absent on this occasion for a whole week, and when I spoke to him about it, he replied that I might go to the 1 both myself and my contract, as he had work enough without mine. This was the 19th of November (not Decembei). Hence my leason for there and then discharging him, having found ft omhis careless and neglectful conduct that 1 could not depend upon him to render me the requisite assistance to carry out the contract. On the same day, 19th of November, I sent Chailes Biindley (since dead) to measure the wood on the beach and at the barracks. The exact quantity he gave m I cannot now remember. On the 20th, I sent the same Charles Bnndley to pay Mrs. Coyle £20, being the amount due then for carting up to thatdate, telling him at the same time to get a receipt for the same. He said, Mis. Coyle told him " that theie was no moie need for a leceipt now, than there had been all the year." He having been discharged on the 19th of November, no fuither claim for woik could be fairly made after that date. Mr. Coyle stated that we entered into a bargain to advance £100 each to purchase wood — also to supply a maii aud a team each, and that he had supplied money and labour by horses and man to the amount of £300. While he made this loose, wild, and truly extravagant statement, he produced not a single bill— no xeceipts, no details, no item 3 whatever, no documents, or a single witness to prove it ' The learned judge evidently assumed that theie was sufficient proof of a partnership having been entered into ; but this has never been sustained by evidence, while the evidence and conduct of Coyle himself demonstrate that there never had been a partnership. If there had, why did he so readily and willingly consent to go about his business if he really knew by compact of any kind he was upon an equal footing with myself in the contract ? Wheie is his protest ? Did he ever make one either written or verbal ' Why did he not there and then dispute my right to dismiss him, if he was conscious that he was a partner in the contract ' On the Ist of April, the day of the commencement of the contract, Coyle went off to the Otahuhu races, and did not return to his work for seven days. On the 17th of March he went up to Morris Kellys, and remained away eight days, during which time I was doing the whole of the work. At another time he spent a week at the Thistle Inn with a well-known party. On the 19th of November he had been absent five or six days, which caused me to tell him that I must endeavour to do without him, as he threw all the woik, anxiety, and responsibility on myself. I reported him to a well-known friend of both of us — and one who could say, if it was expedient for him at this time to be candid, that lam an injured man. Thiee times this case has been dragged before the Court— if thiee, why not tlnee more, or where will it end ' After sweating and toihng, I think it ci uel peisecution to be compelled to pay auother for negleot of duty. — I am, Su, yours, &c, Bernard McDonald.