R. M. COURT.—Friday

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXXI, Issue 5564, 26 June 1875, Page 1 (Supplement)

R. M. COURT.— Friday

[Before Thomas Bkckiiam, Esq., 11. M.] The weekly sitting of the 11. M. Court was held this morning, when the following business was disposed of : — Judgments tor Plaintiffs. — T. Ellison v. U. C. Main waring, £1 17s. Gil. ; E. Hodgson v. G. Finlay, £14 3s. 9d.; W. J. Hill v. Thomas Horan, £2 ; K. and W. Hellaby v. H. Ellis, £4 3b. 7d. ; R. Rfieves v. W. L. Rogers, £8' 9a. 3d. ; A. Craig v. H. Donnelly, £2. Marshall v. Elliott. — Claim £1, for work done as a labourer. — The plaintiff was nonsuited. Adjourned. — Gee and Potter v. J. Mullallv; W. Rattray v. 0. Smith. Carson v. Jones. — Claim, £3 2s. lid. — Mr. Rees for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hesketh for the defendant.— This case has been before the Court for some time. The plaintiff is the collector for the Ponsonby highway district, and the action was for arrears of rates. The defence was that there was no law uuder which the claim could be enforced. The case for the plaintiff was concluded on the previous Courtday. The question was as to whether the rates could be collected under the High ways Act, 1874, the Amendment Act of 1875 not having been passed when the summons was laid. It was contended for the defence that the port of the Act under which the rates were levied did not come into operation owing to the omission of the words "and second " in the Act a3 assented to by the Superintendent. The plaintiff relied upon the journals of the Provincial Council, according to which the words were inserted in the JLJill. The difficulty was the result of a clerical error. — Mr. Hesketh called Mr. G. M, O'Rorke, Speaker of the Provincial Council, who stated that about two or three weeks after the close of the Session, and while in Wellington, the Provincial Secretary brought him the two parchment copies of the Act which had been forwarded to the Superintendent, and oxplained that a mi»tal4phad occurred, and the words " and second " . had been omitted. Witness inserted the words and initialed the alteration, having been told that the Act had not been assented to by the Superintendent. On bis return to Auckland in September he was informed by the Clerk of the Council that copies of the' Act without the words " and second," and had been printed and published. -This closed the evidence. — Mr. Rees contended that in reality it was not necessary for the Acts to be published, and that the journals of the House were sufficient evidence of the legislation actually passed. In those journals appeared an amendment inserting the words " and second" in the Act which was carried. — His Worship reserved judgment. McMahon v. -Russell. — This was a claim for £1 Is. by a midwife. The defence was that there was no engagement, and the services were not rendered. — After hearing the evidence of the parties, the Court ordered a nonsuit to be recorded. — This was all the business. ]