RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 75, 1 October 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

', ITeiday, Septembee 28, 1377. [Before Edvvaed Sn>A>w, Esqi, R.M.] CIVIL CASES. Tnanßahua County Council r. Twohill, £2 for rates due to the Inaugahua Locul lievenus Board upon two sections in ;Sbiel-Street*. Evidenco was taken to show that the defendant sold the sections before the rate was duo. Judgment wa*therefore givenfor defendant with: costs. Same v. Washington —Summons enlarged. Same v. Woollay, £2' for rates duo upon sections 970 to 975. No appearance of defendant.. Judgment for the amount with costs aud professional fee. Same v. Stanton—Case withdrawn with 10s costs tO defendant. Same v. Ronald'—Summons enlarged . for 14 days. 1 Same v. Stockan—Adjourned. 1 Same v. Walter Atkin, I'O.-i. for rates. Judgment for the-amount with 10s. cos**. ; Same v.Molloy, £1 12s rates. Jud#. 'ment by default for the amount olaimed with- costs. Some v. D. O'Cbnnel, £2 7a.. for rates. Judgment by default for the amount witli costs.. The Court then adjourned. Saturday, Sebtembee 29j BANK 01' NKW ZGA-IiAiVU- V. VTVIVE, Mr Pitt for pluintilfs and Mr Guinness- for -defendant/. This was an action by the Bank of Now l&aland, Reofton, to recover the sum. of £$0 cusli advancod; The case bad been beard at a. previous sitting, when jndgnient was reßerved. Hia Worship, in delivering judgment said, the oaße had stood over partly owing to the -sbsenoe of dofenrlant, and pnrtlv in comei :iii"j ::■'! i c <\ tv.l-j) -.(■ ':-. ...i.- •.-* >:>■/ d (•< • i "-....■ ■ • '.- . :

'iicfitfa J£r O-aitnieas, oit bahaU o>f vJofeTsdasit, «cg«E thai usideff fcfee gec&otf of £b<a Etesidenfi ffl&p&whi'* Ac* eottfcmtijf jurisdiction! iv cssss wueie feu« defendant resided outsided the juiws<Jsc<ii<Nj of t?ie Court, it was necessary for Qiq jserso'tn (jr««ging die*e.«m to inakeaa affidavit eeliiug fourth that tlio cause of action f^asffl willua tho jurisdiction of fcbo Court.. The quostiot?. fop the Gj ud. fcitea, w«» whether sv.efa aa offi-lavit <?onlrl b« sworn l»7 a peraon net really tfce plaint?/ 5 " in tlw case but acting as agent fop the plain tiff, in th* present instance, the affidavit having boon jnado by Mi* Colin Campbell on (mlivU 1 of tho Bank of New Zealand. Mr Guinneea 1 oonteation was that the affidavit could only bo sworn to by tlto plaintiff en the case, in short that a corporatios could not tnako oath by deputy. Only one authority had bceu cited by counsel and otrungly enough bath sides relied npon that authority iv support of opposite conleutioaa. I'hc Boucli had come to the couelusiou that all the aoceasnry powers wore conferred upou on ogoat to act as tko plaintiff iv thecaso of a corporation suing. It would have boon idlo for tlia Legislature to confer power to bring such actions if tho authority conferred was a mookory. The swearing of tho affidavit was made a condition precedent of tho action, and that fact went to show fcho agent deputed woe qualified to obtnin that condition precedent. As to tho right of corporations to appear by aa agent, the Court had no doubt whatever upon t,bo point. There were abundant caseg of tho kind where actions were brought by agents or independent persons on behalf of corporations. In nutnboricsa cases,, the agency could not bo well disposed with. If the agent making the affidavit was asked to swear to something not really withm the scope of his ordinary duty a distinction could be drawn, but in tho present easo- the facts were strictly within tho agents knowledge and duty. Ho made oath fchat the defendant was indebted to. th« bank and resided at Eumara. It would be competent for Mr Campbell to go into tho wituess-box and depose to those facts upon oath* and that being so. it was quite competent for him to. do so in limhii. If he could tender .such evidence in tho witnessbox there- was no reason why his written testimony should bo- placed under greaterrestrictions. Wpon .thoso broad grounds, then rafcherthan upon- the authority cited, thcOourt had formed ita conclusions. It was impossible' for the Cotwt to- decide why evidenco of. the one class- should' bo excluded and tho other admitfcedi Judgment was thorofore given for plaintiff's for the amount claimed* with £>K Is. costs and Court expenses.. Tho Court then adjourned.