TRIALS OF A BAILIFF

Southland Times, Issue 16843, 20 September 1911, Page 5

TRIALS OF A BAILIFF

AN UNWELCOME SUMMONS. DECEIVED WITH HOSTILITY. (Special to the "Times.”) AUCKLAND. Sept. 19. James Norris, of Richmond, apparently has a rooted objection to summonses and bailiffs, in addition to which he lias a rather hot temper. One evening last month Mr B. B. Welsh went to Norris’s place to serve on him a summons issued by a man against whom he. harboured some ill-feeling. Norris came to the front door, which is reached by an unusuafty high flight of steps. "Mr Norris, 1 presume ?” said the bailiff suavely. "Yes,” replied Norris. "James ?” insinuated the stranger. Norris admitted that It was so. "Here’s a summons for you from Whitford.” Mr Norris’s courtesy dropped and his temper rose. He slammed the door, knocking off the bailiff’s hat. and sending his umbrella flying. The umbrella happened to alight in the doorway, keeping the door ajar, and the bailiff served the summons scientifically and with accurate aim lb. rough the small open space. As he stooped to pick up his hat and umbrella he was unlovingly embraced by Norris, who characterised him as a low skunk and entreated him to take away the dread paper. Refusal on the Court officer’s part resulted in a request to Mrs Norris to put the paper in Welsh's pocket so that Norris might throw summons, bailiff and all over the verandah. Mrs Norris hesitated at a warning from the bailiff that the consequences would be ..serious, and then Norris attempted to pull Welsh inside I lie door, with the soft impeachment that ho would do for the skunk when he got him within. The prospect did not at all allure the bailiff, who broke away and rushed down the steps, having done his duty by serving his country and the summons. When brought before Mr Cutten. S.M., llijs morning on a charge of having assaulted a bailiff in the execution of his duty, Norris pleaded guilty and Mr Zlman stated in extenuation that accused Was a rather hot-headed man who was incensed at being served with a summons by a man against whom he had some ill-/eeling about an old claim. He was a respectable man, though rather foolish in this respect, and the summons had been thrown rather roughly in at the door-way, resulting in some jostling on the verandah. Mr Selwyn Mays pointed out that though the maximum penalty under the Magistrate’s Act was a £2O fine, the Crimes Act provided for two years’ imprisonment for the same offence. Norris had been convicted nearly six years ago for a similar offence and had then been ordered to come up for sentence when called on. Tlie Magistrate said that it should be understood by the public that Court officers must be protected, and he was surprised at the mild penalty provided by the Act. Accused would be convicted and fined £3 10s and i 1 10s costs, in default 24 days in gaol.