DISTRICT COURT, DUNEDIN. (Before J. H. Harris, Esq, District Judge.)

Otago Witness, Issue 489, 13 April 1861, Page 5

DISTRICT COURT, DUNEDIN. (Before J. H. Harris, Esq , District Judge.)

The monthly sitting of this Court was opened on the 2nd inst. for the despatch of criminal and civil business.

James Dalton was indicted for an indecent assault on Martha Dossett, a child of 5 years of age. Evidence having been taken, the jury retired, and after an absence of an hour and a half, returned with a verdict, of "Not Guilty." The foreman stated that there Was a doubt in the minds of some of the jury, of which they had given the prisoner the benefit. His Honor thereupon discharged him from the bar, and the Court adjourned till next day at 10 o'clock.

TEARCE V. SAUNDERS.

This was a suit by James Henry Pearce of Dunedin, carter, to recover from JameS Saunders, of WaitaUi, settler, the sum of £52 Is. 2d., being damages arising from breach of warranty of a bay mare sold by defendant to plaintiff. A jury of four was sworn to try the issue. Mr. Kenyon appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Howorth for defendant. Evidence having been heard for both parties, the Jury returned a verdict for defendant, with a recommendation that each party should pay his own costs. Judgment was given accordingly, and the Court adjourned till the following day. aitki:n and todd v. east taieri road trustees.

Thomas Aitken and James Todd, both of East Taieri, settlers, sued Andrew Todd and others, Koad Trustees of the East Taieri district, for £28 for work and labour done and performed. Mr. Gillies appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Kenyon for defendants. Mr. Kenyon did not file a special defence, but contended that the contract, if any, was not entered into by the present Board of Trustees, and that neither the present nor the late Board were the proper parties to be sued, and that the General Board was liable. That by the^ltoad Ordinance, lload Trustees were not personally responsible unless they may have voluntarily made themselvs so.

Mr. Gillies contended that, although not per--sonally liable, yet collectively they may be so liable. The District Board accepted the tenders for the work for which this claim is founded ; they had money in their hands which they misapplied, leaving this claim unsatisfied. The present District Board was the same Board, many of tlie members being the same persons. If the Board did not die it Aras continually existent, as the one Board continues until the election of their successors. That if the argument of non-liability was tolerated, a tender may be accepted by one Board, the members might immediately resign, and the succeeding Board might repudiate, and there would be no remedy. Rates can be levied by the District Board (oj wliich the authority only of the General Board is required'but the General Board cannot initiate the prcceeding The expenditure, &c., is left to the District Board without the control of the General Board.

His Honor reserved judgment until Monday next.

M'lxdoe v. M'Glashan.

Jame3 M'lndoe, of Dunedin, merchant, sued John M'Glashan, Dunedin, Provincial Treasurer, for £62 3s. 6d., being the amount due by a " bill of exchange " or " cheque," drawn by one Daniel Egan upon, and alleged to be accepted by the said John M'Glashan.

Mr. Cook appeared for the plaintiff, and the Provincial Solicitor for the defence.

It would appear from the evidence, which was not very clear or conclusive, that Egan was indebted to the plaint ift in a large sum of money ; that he gave what was by Mr. Cook termed a bill of exchange or cheque upon the Provincial Treasurer, to enable plaintiff to recover out of monies due or about to become due by the Government on account of certain road contracts taken by Egan ; that the document was presented to Mr. Street, accountant in the Treasurer's office, and from subsequent acts on the part of the Treasurer and the Provincial Solicitor it was inferred that the bill or cheque was accepted. Monies were subsequently paid to the plaintifi'and Egan, but the entire amount was not paid. A sum sufficient to liquidate the bill accrued, but the defendant refused to pay the amount to plaintiff without the signature of Egan, as he, the defendant, only considered the plaintiff in the light of agent for Egan, and Egan having refused so to sign, and soon afterwards he having executed an assignment of his goods and chattels for the benefit of his- creditors, the amount lying in the defendant's hands as Provincial Treasurer for behoof of Egan was paid over to the parties in whose favour the assignment was made.

His Honor reserved giving judgment until Thursday, to give him time to look into the authorities cited by Mr. Cook and the Provincial Solicitor.