RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
(Before E, H. Carew, Esq,, R.M.)
Wilkie and Co. v, iVilliam Reid.—Claim, L2O 15s, on a judgment summons. Mr W, Macgrcgor appeared for plaintiffs; there was no appearance by or on behalf of defendant.—Ordered to pay the debt by weekly instalments of LI, in default twentyeight days’ imprisonment. D. D. Macdonald v.. Charlotte Cook (Woodlands),—Claim, L 77 4* CJ, on a dishonored promissory note given in settlement of costs, and interest thereon. Sir Egbert Stout appeared for plaintiff; Mr W. D. Stewart for defendant. —Mr Stewart said that ho hardly knew what to do in the matter, as his client was unable to attend, being ill.—Sir Robert Stout said that the matter had been standing over for a long time, but he was Willing to take judgment for L 35. the amount of the principal,_ and waive his claim to. the interest.—lMaintifi having given evidence, His Worship said that the case was a very strong one, and he did not think there should be any further adjournment. Judgment rvould be given for the L 55 which Sir Robert Stout was willing to accept, with L 3 Is costs. Otago Harbor Board v. Maurice Joel. — Claim, L 4 Is, export dues imposed under by-law 225. Sir R, Stout appeared for the Board; Mr E. A. Joel lor defendant. Counsel for the Board having opened the case, called J, L. Gillies, secretary to the Board, who said that by-law 225, as amended, Was duly passed by the Board, and a copy of the by-law as so amended was hung up in the public office of the Board, and also advertised in the Star. Sir Robert asked His Worship to note from witness’s evidence that the by-law was amended on the 28th February, that the same amendment was repeated on the Stb and the 28th of March, that notice was given on the 29th March of the coming into operation of the by-law, and that the Bth of April was fixed as the day for bringing the by-law into force.—Mr Joel contended (1) that the notice of intention to amend the by - law should have indicated to what matters the by-law was to relate. (2) That it had not been stated that the by-laws were printed and open to public inspection, as required by subsection 1 of section IS of the Act of 1883. (3) That compliance with section 59 of the 1878 Act did not necessarily mean compliance with section 18 of the Act of ISS3, the provisions of these sections not being alternative. (4) That even if there be an alternative, the Board had not complied with either subsections 2 or 4 of section 59 of the 1878 Act, because with regard to subsection 2 the whole of the by - laws should have been published, and with regard to subsection 4 the Board had stated an impossible day for the by-laws to come into force. (5) That the notification of March 29 was misleading and incorrect, because it stated that the bylaws were passed on the 2Sth March, on which day it was not competent for the Board to pass them, seeing that the special meeting was fixed for the 2Sth February, and there was no power to adjourn. The adjournment, even if it could be made, was only for the purpose of considering by-law 233. (6) There bad been no acknowledgment of the receipt of notice by the Minister until three or four days after the date fixed for bringing the by-law into operation; and, further, the notification should not have been published until receipt of acknowledgment by the Minister. (7) That it did not appear that the money raised under the by-law was to be applied to any shipping purposes, as demanded by the Act.—Sir R. Stout replied, contending that the by-law was valid. It was, lie said, optional for the Board to comply with section 59 of the 1878 Actor section 18 of the Act of 1883, and that the Board having complied with section 59 that was sufficient; also, that publication of the amendment was sufficient without publishing the whole of the by-law 7 . Counsel also contended thataby-lawcamointoforcebefore it came into operation.—Mr Joel said that if that was so the Acts required notification of the day the by-laws were to come into force, and in this case notification had only been given of the day it would come into operation. —After further argument, His Worship reserved judgment until Wednesday. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs J. H. Morrison, and A. Molllson, J.P.b.) Drunkenness. —For being found in a state of drunkenness Charles Hardin;/ (with ten previous convictions) was fined 10a, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. Jlobert Alexander alias M'Litdoch (one previous conviction) was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. Ann Jane Seals (with seventy-six previous convictions) pleaded not guilty, and said iu extenuation that she “ had just done three months,” and was no sooner out of gaol than she was in again.—The Bench fined her 20s, in default seven days’ imprisonment, A Refractory Seam ax. Duncan M'Kechnie was charged with disobeying the lawful commands of Alexander Nichol, master of the ship Loch Awe, on the 9th inst Accused pleaded not guilty.—Prosecutor said accused was an articled able seaman. Yesterday evening accused entered witness’s cabin, began abusing him, and refused to leave the cabin when ordered to. Constable Keenan gave evidence as to accused being violent and refusing to leave the canin.—James Heath, cook on board the Loch Awe, also gave evidence.—Accused was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment, and was ordered to forfeit one day’s pay.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS.—TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 7929, 10 June 1889
THE COURTS.—TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 7929, 10 June 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.