INVERCARGILL—FIFTY YEARS AGO

Southland Times, Issue 24153, 15 June 1940, Page 11

INVERCARGILL—FIFTY YEARS AGO

Some Important Cases At Law

[By

T. P. GILFEDDER, J.P.

No. 3.

MANY prominent civil and criminal Supreme Court cases were dealt with in Invercargill about 50 years ago, and each one created more than ordinary interest. Indeed, in some instances excitement ran high.

Henderson v. Hatch was one of these. At the parliamentary election in 1887, there were five candidates for the Invercargill seat, including Henry Feldwick, the sitting member, and Joseph Hatch, a former member. Feldwick was elected. The returning officer was Mr A. C. Henderson, who was also registrar of the Supreme Court. On the hustings in front of the courthouse, at the declaration of the poll, Hatch accused the returning officer of unfair conduct during the election, concluding his remarks by saying that the returning*officer was “no more fit for his position than the dog in the street.” The sequel was that Henderson brought an action against Hatch, claiming £lOOO damages, and secured a verdict for £5O. Although the accusations were defamatory and actionable, Hatch had great sympathy from the public. Some time afterwards Henderson resigned the positions of returning officer and registrar of the Supreme Court, receiving £490 from the Government for loss of office. He then began practice as a solicitor. Another important action was that between Wilson, Taine and Co., a lead ing firm of auctioneers, and the Bank of New Zealand. Mr A. F. Mac Kay was manager of the Invercargill branch. The bank sued for £9OO on dishonoured promissory notes. This claim was admitted, but the firm claimed £2OOO damages for injury to business through the bank dishonouring a cheque on one of the three separate accounts, when sufficient funds were in credit on that particular account. The case created widespread interest and lasted three days. Sir Robert Stout appeared for Wilson, Taine and Co., and Mr T. M. Macdonald for the bank. As the jury could not agree, the action was adjourned to Dunedin. At the fresh hearing amended claims were lodged. Wilson, Taine and Co. sought £lO,OOO damages. The jury awarded £5OOO. The bank got £3500 for overdraft and overdue bulls, leaving £l5OO in favour of Wilson, Taine and Co. Glenham Case

WHEN the Glenham railway tunnel collapsed during construction, three men were killed—William Newall, John Richards (his stepson), and William Maloney. Several others were injured. Mrs Newall and dependants sued the contractor, Alexander Menzies, for compensation—alleging negligence. Many building contractors and employers of labour watched the case to learn what constituted “negligence.” The judge’s special engineering knowledge facilitated the giving of intricate and technical evidence and the making of points clear to the jury. Some of the timber used in the tunnel was alleged to have been ships’ spars and on the suitability of these for the work experts differed. The contractor was, however, held liable, and a verdict for £l5O was given against him. A local body liability case brought many members of councils and boards to Invercargill to hear the evidence and addresses. It was that of Jeremiah Finn, Wreys Bush, against the Wallace County Council. Plaintiff was riding over a culvert on the Wreys BushLimehills road, when his horse stumbled where a plank had been broken. Finn received permanent injury. The main point was: Did the council know that the culvert was out of repair, or should it have known? The Judge told the jury that a local body was not, generally, responsible for keeping roads and bridges in repair, but if it neglected to supervise dangerous defects it could not escape liability. Sil 1 Robert Stout appeared for plaintiff and Mr B. C. Haggitt (Dunedin) for the council. After a hard fight regarding the negligence of local bodies, plaintiff secured £B4O damages. A libel action caused considerable interest in Gore, and in legal circles

generally. The plaintiff was W. H. Palmer, clerk of the court, and the defendant The Gore Standard, of which John G. Fraser was editor. Comment had been made in the newspaper regarding the action of the clerk in shifting some seats on the bench while a certain case was being heard by three justices of the .peace. The paper urged that the clerk should be given a change of scene—a transfer. Later, it charged the clerk with purposely neglecting to produce to the licensing committee a police report on an application foi* an hotel licence.

Palmers reply to this allegation was that a paragraph had been added to another report by the police officer. It was filed away in connection with the other matter and overlooked.

The Judge pointed out that the newspapei - was entitled to express an honest opinion, even if wrong. The jury found for defendant. Evasion of Stamp Duty 4N important proceeding under the Deceased Persons Estates Act took place in the late ’eighties. A Western District farmer owned a large holding, and as each of his five sons got married, he conveyed to him a portion of the property, deciding the acreage according to the number of years the son worked on the original farm. Later, having changed his solicitor, the father made a will leaving to each son the farm already held and occupied by him.

When probate was being dealt with, the registrar of deeds remarked: “What! He left to his sons the property that already was theirs.” The conveyances were looked upon as “deeds of gift,” and were not properly stamped. A magisterial inquiry was held and the matter was also dealt with by Mr Justice Williams, in chambers, at Dunedin. The result was a fine of £lOO, in each case, for evasion of stamp duty. A petition was immediately presented to the Governor, Lord Onslow, praying for remission of the fines, or part of same, but without success. An action under the Bankruptcy Act about this time caused great interest among business people and citizens alike. Two well-known drapers—McLeod Brothers—were charged with a breach of the Act—failing to keep books and accounts. They occupied premises in Dee street, at the corner of Don street, where a chemist’s shop is now situated.

As the case proceeded the official assignee, Mr James Ashcroft, Dunedin, drafted a warrant of committal in anticipation of its being required. This draft was forwarded to me for engrossment, as my firm was acting for the assignee. By the time the warrant arrived back at the courthouse, Judge Broad had sentenced the McLeods to three months’ imprisonment, and had left the Bench. He signed the warrant, however, in the Judge’s room. Bankrupts’ solicitor, Mr John Macalister, contended that this procedure was irregular and rendered the committal invalid.- The Supreme Court upheld this contention, and the bankrupts were released.

Cattle Stealing

A cattle-stealing case was responsible for mild excitement throughout Southland in 1888. Miss Sophia Kidd, the 28-year-old daughter of a Forest Hill farmer, was charged on two counts: first, with stealing 16 head of cattle, and second, with receiving the cattle knowing them to have been stolen.

It appeared that a herd had been removed from the Hokonui district and sold at the Mataura saleyards. A large number of witnesses were examined. Many were unable to identify the accused as the person who had sold the cattle and received the cheque, made payable to “Mrs Allan.” The jury after being locked up all night was unable to agree, and a new trial was ordered. At this, Sophia Kidd was found guilty of receiving and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour, (To Be Continued)