DISTRICT COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 3179, 21 August 1878, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, 20th August. (Before His Honor, Judge Harvey.)

A sitting of this Court was opened by His Honor, Judge Harvey, yesterday, at 11 o'clock in the Kesident Magistrate's Court.

Before the regular business commenced Mr T. M. McDonald, the Crown Prosecutor, rose, andf'addressing the Judge, said, on behalf of the other members of the profession, may it please Your Honor, before proceeding TTitfc t&e OTGinaiy'trojsifles? of tbe Court, I am

desired by the members of the Bar here, in welcoming you to Invercargill, to express the: pleasure they feel at seeing Tour Honor; on -this Bench. It is a matter of congratu-latiptij-ras'well taCthe profession as to the pwbUc^that ; the" learned gentleman who rltently occupied rtne Bench of this Court is sufcee^edbyaj Judge whose ability and' impartiality are so virpll known, and who to his other qualifications for the office, adds an intimate aquaintance with colonial- law = derived.from . an, extensive private, - practice of the profession before appointment as a judge. I have only to add that Your Hpnor may rely with confidence vupbn the members of the Bar affording you that support and assistance in the discharge of your important duties which it is the duty and privilege of the Bar to afford to the Court. His Honor in returning thanks, said he felt it an honor and privelege to succeed Judge Ward, and hoped to be able to discharge the important duties of his office with the same strict integrity as he had done. He sincerely desired to renew with the Bar, the same kind feelings that had subsisted between them and his predecessor, and he thanked them for their kind expression of feeling towards him.

A jury of four, consisting of Messrs A. Aldridge (Foreman), James Anderson, D. Anderson, and John Allison, was empanelled. Finn v. Hamilton. — This was an action raised to recover £100 as damages for an assault, alleged to have been committed in the Court House by removing plaintiff therefrom on the sth August.

Mr Wade appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Russell for the defendant.

Mr Wade opened the case by detailing how, on the sth August last, defendant appeared to have imagined himself in possession of the Court House on the occasion of a meeting of -the creditors of Joseph Campbell, a bankrupt. Plaintiff, an articled clerk, was representing a creditor, and had a proof of debt and a proxy from this creditor in his pocket. Hamilton was a creditor, but at that time had not proyed his right. He was not in the Chair. He objected to plaintiff's presence, as it was, he said, a private meeeting of creditors, and ordered him out. Defendant af terwai-ds put himself in a fighting attitude, and then took plaintiff by the collar and put him out of the room. Till a trustee is appointed, the Clerk of the Court acts as such ex officio, and was so acting on that occasion. Mr Hamilton had no particular locvs stand/. Had Mr Finn a right to be there, or had Mr Hamilton a right to put Mm out ? He cited Reave v. Coker in support of his contention that his client had a legal right to be there.

Terence Patrick Finn deposed that he attended in the Court House on sth May, to represent the debtor in the absence of his (defendant's) principal. It has been the custom here for articled clerks to do this. He held proof of debt and proxy from Christian Myers to the amount of £6 155., but had since lost it.

Mr Russell expressed surprise that when the plaintiff proceeded against the defendant he had not taken care of the important proof. The plaintiff, rejoined that he had lost it and could not find it.

On the question of the regularity of the proof and proxy, the Court ruled that plaintiff had a right to be there to present them whether the documents might be regular or not.

Examination continued,

Kemained alone for some time in the Court Kooin on the sth August till Messrs Brown, Dunlop, Erskine, defendant, and the Clerk of the Court entered. Defendant told him that it was a private meeting called by himself, and that he could not allow him to remain there.

The Clerk of the Court said that the meeting was called by him at the request of the four creditors.

Witness in continuation said he was there to watch over the interests of the debtor. Mr Dunlop was in the chair.

Mr Wade contended that the chairmcin only had the right to order auy one out.

Examination resumed. Defendant said he would see whether he or witness would stop in, and left the room. He returned almost directly, pulled off his over coat, caught plaintiff by the collar and forcibly ejected him. Had said nothing to annoy or anger defendant. Witness sustained no bodily harm, beyond the indignity. Offered to settle the matter for an apology and a sum of money to be paid to the hospital, besides costs. Defendant's counsel strongly repudiated having received any such offer, andmaintained there was no mention made of giving to the hospital. No quarrel took place between plaintiff and defendant. Something was said about Perkins being appointed as Trustee, but witness remembered very little about it. Knew defendant was delicate and did not care to ran any risk by resisting him. Charles W* Brown deposed, he was an accountant, and became Trustee in Joseph Campbell's estate. Received proof of debt from creditors including defendant, on the 14th ult.

His Honor ruled that no one had a right to vote, or take part in a meeting of creditors till proof of debt is filed, nor to eject persons from such a meeting.

Daniel Dunlop deposed there was no violence whatever offered to Mr Finn, who went from the middle of the room, of his own accord.

Joseph Campbell deposed that he heard defendant say to plaintiff, " you must go out or I will fight you for it." He then gripped plaintiff and ran him to the door. Mr Finn went out smiling.

Mr Russell contended that meetings of creditors were private.

The ruling of the Judge, however, was that they were open to the whole public. Several other witnesses were examined without adding materially to the facts of the case.

The Judge addressing the Jury recapitulated the law and evidence bearing on the case, and was of opinion that neither Mr Hamilton, nor any other person, had any right to eject plaintiff from the room. None of the creditors had qualified under the Act, therefore there was no meeting, and Mr Finn could not have interrupted it. Mr Finn had a right to be there to advise the debtor, and articled clerks to his o%vn knowledge, had frequently done so at meetings of creditors, but were not entitled to appear in Court. The plea of justification was not made out. The question of damages was entirely for the Jury. The offence was very indecent, but of bodily injury, plaintiff had sustained none, although the indignity was serious. The Jury after retiring for a short time, delivered a verdict for the plaintiff ; damages £15, with costs £8 7s. The following cases in bankruptcy were then called: —

Geo. Weavers, of Gore, Butcher. Adjourned till to-morro'.v, (today) on account of absence of Trustee.

Cecil Jackson, Surgeon, applied for his discharge, Granted without opposition.

Wm. Sargeant, applied per Mr Mathews, for his discharge. This case was adjourned from last sitting of the Court. Granted without opposition.

The Court was adjourned till tc-day.