MUNICIPAL NOMINATIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 8612, 4 September 1891, Page 2

MUNICIPAL NOMINATIONS.

Maori Hill.—John Pollock, proposed by John M'Lennan and Thomas Morrow, was returned unopposed for South Ward.

West Harbor,—Thomas Ross and John Wlnton were nominated for Rothesay Ward; Henry Dunning and Mungo Hatton for Ravensbourne Ward. No nominations, were received, for Sawyers Bay .and St. Leonards' Wards., > ■ ,

North-east Valley. —David Anderson, being the only candidate nominated, was declared duly elected for High Ward, For West Ward Gideon Branton, John Camp-, bell, and Henry Duncan wore nominated; and for East Ward John Arthur, James BroVn, add' James Straln. <’ Roslyn.—William Farley was re-eleoted without oppositloiifoir Linden Ward.

(80/ ore fIS Mr , Tttta #. CUiKB AND «H Interrogatories 6b;bebalf Cook).—Accordingly, within ten days, ' Batchelor v. Gore —Summons to try •plaintiff's claim and defendant’s doubter claim together before a jury of twelve (Mr Wood house). —Accordingly, Re George LoHan, deceased,—Motion for roffittoeratinu to eteoutors, with Registrars report (Mr Hodgkins).—Confirmed. •: Bushy. The Mobnington Tramway Company, Limited.— Summons to review taction (Sir R. StoUtV—Two items disallowed. Re KtNCAtD, M'QlrniiPr, Airficb,-, LiMiTed. rfMotion for Allowance of claims (Hon. W, ,D. Stewart).—Accordingly ; date of adjudication adjourned till 22nd. Probate was granted re James Cspstiok (Mr J. Mouat), John Lawson (Mr W. Maogregor), Ralph Halliday (Mr W. Maogregor), and Joseph Young (Mr Sim). Re Alexander M'Killop. Motion for letters of administration (Mr J. Maogregor). —Accordingly.

SUPREME COURT-IN BANCO.

(Before His Honor Mr Jnatice Williams.) TIMOTHY OOBMAN V. MARY GORMAN. Case on appeal from Mr C. E, Rawson, R.M., at Invercargill. Sir R, Stout for appellant, and Mr Fraser, for respondent, His Honor gave’judgment hen in as fob loWj t

T vo objections were raieed by Sir R. Stout to the xnagissrato’s order that the appellant should enter Into recognisances—first, that the building which he threatened to destroy had not' been erected; and, secondly, that a question of title to land arose which oueted the jurisdiction of the magistrate. As to the first objection, tbe main question Under subsection 4 of section 8 is whether there is just cause for fear that the threat will be carried into eieotttlon. If the magistrate Considered that it was reasonable to suppose that the er< blion of the building would be forthwith proceeded With, and that, if it was Srocebded With, the threat to destroy it would e carried out, there would be just cause for suck fear. The case comes within the letter of the section and also Within the spirit. The whcle principle bu Which the sureties of tub peace are required is to prevent some mischief that may be rea-onably anticipated. The other objection that a bona fide question of title arose before the magistrate) and that his jurisdiction Was therefore ousted) has really no application in.the pretent oafie. Jurisdiction is given to the justice by section 8, subsection 4, of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1882. By that subsection the justice may call upon any person to enter into recognisances if be shall be satisfied, by evidence that the person from whom surety is sought has threatened to do any act which Would, if done, be punishable as an offence under any part of tbe Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1867, and the justice shall be of opinion that there is just oaqgeto fear that the person so threatening will, if not prevented, birrjr tubh threat into execution. The question therefore the Justice has to decide Is whether the aot threatened is punishable as an offence under any put of tbe Malicious Injuries to Property Aot. In order to ascertain whether it is so or not, he moat see what the ingredients of tlleSo offences ate, and Wh&ther the evidence before him shows that if the threat were carried out the ingredients required to constitute the offence would ba present. Anything that is necessary for him to find out this the justice has jurisdiction to inquire into and decide. Now, in the present ease, if the threat were carried out and the value of the property destroyed was above L 5, and the Aot Was done unlawfully and maliciously, then) under section SI of the Malicious Icj tries to Property Act, it Would be an indictable m siemeaijor. If, however, the person so indicted honestly, though erroneously, believed he had a right to prevent the erection of buildings on the land, and pulled them down accordingly when erected la exercise of his supposed tight, the juty would be properly told that such person should be acquitted (Regina v, Twoee, 14 Oox, C.0., 327) The magistrate, therefore, in order to determine whether the Ac: was or was net pttnishAble under this section, would have to decide whether Gorman did or did not honestly balieve be had the right to do what he threatened. Any evidence that would have been admissible on a trial if Gorman had carried oat his threat and had bten indicted would ba admissible to enable the magistrate to determine this. The other section of the Aot under which the acts threatened might constitute an offence is section 52. By that section, whatever the value of the property, if the act we/o done wilfully or maliciously the threatened aot is punish tble by summary conviction. That section contains a proviso that the section shall not extend to any case where tbe party acted under a fair and reasonable supposition that he had a right to do the act complained of. This proviso has received judicial interpretation. It has been held that It overrides the proviso uma'ly imp led in summary convictions that a bona fide claim of right is sufficient to o st the jurisdiction of justices, and that where a private person does wilful damage to property mere bona fides is not of i'iaelf a protection from the penalty imposed by this section (White v, Feast, L.K. 7, Q.B. 393; see alas Regina V. Richmond, 8 Cox 0.0. 313, Regina v, Dodson, 9A. and E. 70). There mast be not only honest belief, bat a reasonable ground for that belief. If Gorman carried out his thread, he would have committed an offence under this section, unless he produced sufficient evidence to convince the magistrate that he ao'.ed under a fair and reasonable supposition that he had a right to do the aot, notwithstanding he may have honestly believed he was justified in doing tbs aot. The magistrate here heard, as be had a light to hear, tbe evidence on both sides, and oime in effect to the conclusion that, if Gorman had carried out his threat, there would have been no justification for his doing so. It is certainly a possible conclusion from the evidence as stated that Gorman’s threat was made, no t in the bon a fide asser tlon of a title to the land, but out of ill will to his wife, and to put jiressure on her to satisfy a pecuniary demand which had no satisfactory justification, andthatGorman had not shown any reasonable ground for the assei-tion of a title. In any case, the objection that tbe magistrate’s jurisdiction was ousted by a claim of title is untenable. Appeal dismissed, with costs (L 7 7s).

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

John Jones v, George Wallace.—Claim, LI Us fid, on a judgment summons. Mr Brodrick appeared for plaintiff. This partlyheard case was resumed.—Evidence was given on both sides, after which His Worship said that it did not appear from the evidence that defendant had means and ability to pay since the date of judgment. The case would be dismissed.

Roxburgh Amalgamated Mining Company v. James Steele.—Claim, L 22 17s lOd, on calls. Mr Chapman for plaintiff company, and Mr Monat lor defendant. —His Worship gave judgment in this case as follows This is-a olalin for the allotment money for fifty shares in the plaintiff company, and for sixteen calls due in respect thereof. The defendant applied for the shares in writing, in the usual form, addressed to tbe direotocs of the company, and he gave the application to Mr Lodge, at Roxburgh, who, be states, was canvassing for the company. The application was forwarded to the directors in Dunedin, who allotted the shares, and written notice of allotment was posted to defendant. The' defence Is that Mr Lodge promised defendant ..steady work in the company’s claim if he took np the shares, and. agreed .that the application money, and future calls were to be deducted from his wages; and that since shares were allotted to him he- applied for work, but was not employed. The evidence, it Deems to me, Cannot, be accepted to vary the contract shown .by thewrßten application and notice of allotment. These snow a complete contract made between the defendant and the directors, without any reference to the arrangement which defendant says had previously been made between himself and Mr Lodge. The contract was made;, direct with. ithfi amL-omt through Mr Lodge. There is no evidence to show that Mr LodgeKadaby further authority from the company than to solicit applications for shares, ana there are no grounds for admitting any v pr£vious arrangement With Mr Lodge of the bargain.— Judgment fpr plaintiffq for £2% 17a and ’costs.

Carl Graf v.Abraham Ppsaftpsid.—Claim, L 3 10s, balance of account due for making an artificial leg. MrHodgkinsfor plaintiff; Mr Hanlon for defendant.—The bearing of this partly-heard case 7 was resumed.— Mr Hodgkins stated that, in the report of the case appearing in the Stab on Wednesday, the plaintiff was made to say that the leg that Johnston made weighed half a ton. What the witness really said was that the limb felt as if it weighed half a ton, It was

only (air to Mr Johnston that the explanation afgftto wliijion. —JtJe^^^ton/^m peny There vrawpwveral serious defects. The ankle-joint was made so that it Won impossible for a titan Using it to wglk with cash add comfort The weight was 71b. It wda a ihAtttr of Impossibility for single joints to stand in an artificial leg, Ihe sbortr whloh»WM"anQtber serious fault, and Joints at tbs kneb were anterior instead of be% threeJQuaiftere of an inch behind the point of gravityt The leg prodnded v< ifiraß proflerlrdonstradted j it waß made bjr witbess. Witness never made plaintiff a leg. The leg in dispute was not fit to wear.—Plaintiff, recalled, said, In answer to Mr Hanlon, that Mr Johnston made only a peg-leg for him. It was one of the springs that gave way, not the leg. The leg he was wearing was his own make.—On bejng pretsad on this point, the witness admitted that the upper part of it Was made by Mr Johnston,—Joseph Hooker • gave nn-. important evidence for the defence,—Ejs Worship, in giving judgment, said the whole case was whether the leg was scientifically made or not. The evidence showed that it was not. If plaintiff had- said to the defendant thathe was only an amateur, and that, he would do the best he could,and defendant elected thereafter to give, the, work to the plaintiff, defendant would have been bofiad to aooept .the artiole turned ottt t but that was hot the position In the case. Judgment Wotild be for defendant, with costs. His Worship alto found that the amount paid (L2 10i) was more than the full value of 'tbe leg.

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs H. F. Hardy and G. L. Denniston, J.P.s.) Housebreaking. John Oilliaon was charged with haying, on the 3rd. hut., at South Dunedin, broken and entered the dwelling-house of Barbara Hutchison with intent to steal therefrom.—Tbe Sergeantmajor of police said that in this case tha man was arrested yesterday evening, and the police had not had time to get up the ease. He would therefore ask for a remand till Tuesday. There was no donbt about the identity of accused.—Case remanded as requested, Disorderly House.— Elizabeth. Smythe was charged on remand with being tbe occupier of a disorderly house in Stafford street.—The Sergeant-major of police mentioned that accused had been before the Court some time ago, and the Bench then gave her a week to leave the locality, which she had done. The Bench said they supposed they must now dismiss the case. Dismissed accordingly. - ; Cattle Wandering.— Matthew Dormer , Timolhy Hayes, and Ann Jennings, tor allowing cattle to wander on the Town Belt, were each fined 9a, without costs.