RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 13, Issue 1086, 24 September 1869, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, Seftembeb 21. (Before John Curling, Esq., 8.M.) , Webb r. Smith $ Miller. In this case H. E. "Webb sued Messrs. Smith, and Miller, the trustees of his insolvent estate, for £29 18s 5d for his services as manager of the lemonade business which was carried on by him for the benefit of his estate. ' Mr. Lee appeared for plaintiff. After fully going into the case, the Court gave judgment for defendants, with costs. Potter v. Boiling Doion Company, This was to recover £3 ss, slaughterhouse fees. Mr. Oarlyon for plaintiff; Mr. Cuff for defendants. The defendants pleaded not indebted. After a long legal argument, the Resident Magistrate decided that as the Company was not licensed, they could not be forced to pay the fees in question. Judgment— Nonsuit. Higgins v. Maney. This was an action to recover the value of 61 pigs; at 14s. each, sold and delivered to defendant. Mr. Cuff for plaintiff; Mr. Lee for dofendant. The defence was that defendant had only purchased between 40 and 50 " good pigs," and the plaintiff had sent him a number of "suckers" to make up the number of 61. It appeared, however, that defendant had, after he had objected to the quality of certain of the pigs, paid plaintiff £10 on account. This being the case, judgment was given for the plaintiff for £32 14s. and £3 17s. costs. Thuesday, Septembeb 23. Potter v. the JELavohes Bay Steam Boiling ■'■ . Down Company. In this case Thomas Potter, the lessee of the slaughter-yards, had laid an information against the above-named Company "for that the said Company within the space of two months last past, to wit from the 22nd July to 21st September, 1869, at West Clive, unlawfully did slaughter twenty sheep, without being duly licensed, contrary to the provisions of the Hawke's Bay Slaughter-house Act, Session 8, No. 5." Mr. Carylon appeared in support of the information ; Mr. Cuff for the defendants. Mr. Carylon, in opening the case, said this was an information laid by his client against a company of amateur butchers who were in the habit of slaughtering large numbers of sheep without having a license to do so, as required by law. The statute required that, in such a case, a penalty of £5 per head should be paid for every animal so slaughtered. He could not imagine what defence could be set up. It might be that they believed a former decision of the Court gave them license to do so ; but he could not understand any grounds of exemption. As the directors nearly all held the commission of the peace, they ought to be the last persons to raise any technical objections. An offer had been made to defendants to bring the case in a simple form ; but that offer had been declined. It was for the Court to say whether the defendants could "slaughter on their own hook." His client only enumerated 20 head in the information, but he was in a position to prove unlicensed slaughtering to an enormous extent. It might be urged that this Boiling Down Co. was fostering a " local industry," — but so were the butchers, who paid their license fees ; if it was a '■' local industry " it was also a "pocket industry." The Boiling Down Co. did not slaughter sheep and sell mutton for the public benefit, but for their own profit. He would now call the informant.

Thomas Potter, lessee of the slaughteryard, deposed that he had seen two men at the Boiling Down Establishment killing sheep there, after which the carcases were placed in a cart to be carried away for sale. He had been a butcher there, and it was their constant habit so to kill, and sell the meat.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cuff: I have not been authorised by the Inspector of Slaughter-houses to lay this information. George Collins, who had also been a butcher at the Boiling Down Establishment, deposed that on the 23rd of August he slaughtered 22 or 23 sheep there. Mr. Cuff: We admit the slaughtering. Mr. Carlyon contended that anyone being of age and of sound mind could lay an information, when he saw the law infringed ; it was the duty of anyone, unless the Act specially specified otherwise, to lay an information. Mr. Cuff contended that the information must be laid by a " competent person," and that the Inspector, or some one duly authorised by him, was the only proper person in that behalf. In the present case the informant had no authority, in writing or otherwise. Mr. Carlyon replied that the present informant had himself been fined for the same offence, and then the information waa not laid by the Inspector. He never heard such a gross misinterpretation of the law as that urged by his learned friend. Certainly if an interested party was the right individual to lay an information, the lessee of the slaughter-house was interested, as he should get the fees, the payment of which the Boiling Down Company were now evading. Mr. Cuff: The Boiling-Down Company is specially exempted (by the lease granted to the informant) from payment of fees. (Lease produced.) Mr. Carlyon : By whom ? They cannot sefc aside an Act of Parliament. The whole question is this,— Are a number of gentlemen, magistrates, to be allowed to form themselves into a company of amateur butchers, and totally disregard the law?

Gr. Peacock, Inspector of Slaughterhouses, deposed that he had not authorised Mr. Potter to lay this information. If he had done so, the authority would have been in writing. The Resident Magistrate was not quite with Mr. Carlyon as to , the construction of the term "competent person," i.e., competency to lay the information. Mr. Carlyon replied that in this case it would have been impossible for the Inspector of Slaughter-houses to lay the information, not having been present at the slaughtering, — which was, liowever, admitted. It was the law of England that any one who was cognisant of a breach of the law was competent to lay an information. The only exceptions which he remembered were in the "Arms Act," and the " Customs Act."

The Resident Magistrate asked whether either of the legal gentlemen could cite any cases relating to the question of competency to lay an information. Neither gentleman citing a case, the Resident Magistrate said he should take time to see if he could not findisome cases, and not hastily give a decision. The case was therefore adjourned for this purpose for an hour. The Attorney-GreneraL was telegraphed to for his opinion ; but a reply not having ; arrived; at 3 p.m., the case was adjourned till next (this) day at 11 a.m. -