A MISHAP AT THE PORT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 15 June 1936, Page 2

A MISHAP AT THE PORT

APPLICATION FOR RE-HEARING OF A CASE • An application was made to the •Magistrate’s Court to-day for a rehearing of the case in which Richard G. Hudson (Mr G. Samuel) was granted £4l 10s damages against Ronald H. Montgomery (Mr- W. C. Harley) for damage done to plaintiff’s boat by defendant’s boat. The application was made on the grounds that new evidence had been discovered. The case was adjourned for a week to permit the new evidence to be stated in the affidavit. Mr Samuel opposed the rehearing of the case as there was no new evidence set out in the affidavit. The affidavit said that new evidence had been discovered but the evidence itself was-not placed before the court on oath. He maintained that this must be done and he submitted that the application could not succeed. The Magistrate, Mr T. E. Maunsell, held that he was entitled to .call for further evidence. Mr W. C. Harley said that if Mr Samuel was correct the application for a re-hearing would become the rehearing itself. The Magistrate said that he upheld Mr Samuel’s objection that the evidence must be before the court before he could hear the case. The point was disputed by Mr Harley who said that if his Worship ruled that the evidence must be before the court and if he considered the evidence, there was no ground for a rehearing, because his Worship had the complete case before him when he granted the application. The Magistrate disagreed; the whole case would be heard again. The credibility of the witnesses must be gone into. Mr Harley then applied for a week in which to put in the affidavit containing ;he new evidence. The application was opposed by Mr Samuel, who said that it came too late. The application for a re-hearing was before the court and he submitted that it must stand or fall on the affidavit of Montgomery. The Magistrate said that he did not think he ought to refuse the application, and that it would be unjust to do so. An adjournment was granted till 22nd June and the plaintiff (Hudson) was allowed 10s 6d costs.