LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue XII, 3 July 1875, Page 1 (Supplement)

LAW AND POLICE.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— Friday. (Before Thoa. Beckham, Esq., R.M.J Tiie ordinary weekly sitting, for the determination of small debt claims, was held this morning, and the following business disposed of :— Carson- v. Joxes (Highway Rates). Jcdgment.—Mr. Rees for plaintiff; Mr. Hesketh for the defendant. Thi3 case had occupied the attention of the Court for several weeks. The claim was £3 ISs. Several minor points were raised in the course of the proceedings, upon which interlocutory judgments were given. The leading objection taken by the defendant wss, that there was "no statute" under which ho was obliged to pay the rates (Fonsonby or Dedwood District). The ground upon which this objection was raised, was, that in the published statute the words "and second" were omitted; the effect being, according to the defendant, that the " second" part of the Act had not been brought into operation. Upon this issue was taken, and the case wa3 adjourned to procure the attendance of the " Provincial Council," the Clerk of Records," and the "chief clerk" of the Superintendent's office. These public officers were in attendance at the last Courtday, and the Speaker (G. M. O'Rorke, Esq.) wag examined, and gave an account of the manner in which the omission was discovered and the means taken to remedy it. The question then turned upon the manner of proof as to the passing of the Act by the* Council, and the assent and publication by I the Superintendent. It appeared that som« copies of the Act were subscribed with the name of the late Superintendent, others with the names of the late Superintendent and the Speaker and Clerk of Council. It was argued that a clerical error by an officer of the " house" would not invalidate the Act of the Legislature, and consequently that if proof were offered that this Act had passed the Council, that would be sufficient. Mr. Rees j>ut in the Journals of the Council, but objection was taken by the other side as io • their sufficiency. Mr. Rees, however, cited a case (The King v. Jefferies, L Str&nge'a Reports, p. 446) where a similar question was raised, and Keble's Statutes and Rastal'a were found to differ. Those who were "in favour of adhering to Keble's Statutes proved that they examined him with the "Parliament Roll," and the Chitf Justice ruled that Keble's statutes were sufficient proof. Judgment for plaintiff aocordingly. Undkfekdkd Cases (Jddgments to% Pujn'TlFKs. )—Levi and Co. v. Kell, 10b ; Belcher v. Cleary, £10 lis; Rattray v. Smith, £10 17s ; Bayley v. R. C. Smith, £4; Cranwell and Co. v. Callaghen, £1 4s; Thompson v Gamble, £1 10s; Parker v. Corcoran, £1; Caley v. Ellis, 17s 6d. This concluded the business.