Mr- W. A. B. ADAMS to the PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

Colonist, Volume XVII, Issue 1898, 8 April 1875, Page 3

Mr- W. A. B. ADAMS to the PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

Nelson, New Zealand, March 30, 1875. The Provincial Secretary, Nelson. Sir, —I hare the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 24th instant forwarding correspondence re-the cases of the Board of Education v. Gibson and t>. Holland, and requesting me to acquaint the Government with any circumstances bearing on. the oases within my knowledge. . I may say at once that personally I did nothing i» Gibson's case until I met him at Court I havemade careful enquiry of our clerks, and of the dark and bailiff to the R. M. Court, and find that the list of persons to be sued handed us by the Government contained the name of "Gibson,!' without, anyr Christian name; this ww the case with many others, the collector, I presume, being, unable to. obtain further information. In thie and the other cases we had recourse to the city list of ratepayer* and the electoral roll to supply the further particulars required by the R,, M.. Act before issuing a summons, and on reference to the list and roll,, the only "Gibson" was, described at "-William Gibson, carpenter." Against him, therefore, the summone was made out, and considering the difficulty of obtaining, precise information it, is, sot. surprising that Buph a'mistake should have ooowred.. The real man beipg another William Gibson in the employ of Mr White, shoemaker, and sot on either the list or the roll. The summons, was applied for on Friday, the 19th, and the mjbpcjna on.the day following.. Gibsoa has the only qppy of the subpona, but I think, the summon* and ■uj>pom\both bear the same date—the-20J;hr-and wei-e both made but by the Clerk to th» Court on that, day. The summons we* terved' on Monday* without the subpoena, and Gibson came to» our office and produced hi* receipts.. Oar a jooontanb told him he ought not to have been ■am / noned,.to> leave the summons, Md,not trouble farther abbot the: matter! as we would see that it w»» withdrawn^ W*

were quite ignorant of the Bubpcena not having v been served. The solicitor simply applies for a summons or subpoena, and does not know, when it is made out nor when or bow it is served. . ," . When Gibson received' the subpoena on Thursday, be, in the first place, ought to have thrown it aside, as he had been told by our accountant not to *voa}> l* about the case further ; secondly, he could have had any doubts cleared up by calling at our office a second timß ; and, thirdly, when he went to Court at.eleven a.m. he might have spoken to me, and I would hare got the Clerk to the Court in his presence to mark the case for re-service on the other man. Our farm kept their word with him, and the summons was ■withdrawn whon it was reached in the ordinary course, and ivltored for re-service, without any interference of his, and he need not have troubled himaelt further about it. But he persistently came to the Court both in the morning and afternoon and remained there, although direutly I saw him I told him that I was sorry there had been a mistake but that it coald not be helped and had been promptly explained, and that it was useless for him to waste his time there. I think Gibsou has some cause of complaint (in being summoned by mistake for another) but he has no claim for hia day's allowance at Court, bb a reasonable man would not have gone and remained there. His grievance is one of those thafwill ocour now and then, and of which is said de minimis non curat lex. Defendants are often wrongfully sued and attend and win their cases, and get no recompense for their loss of time and often lose the cost of obtaining legal advice. Such is the law of the land. I repeat that I am sorry it should have happened, at the same time I don't think he is much hurt. As to Holland's case I was instructed to summons him for the rates mentioned in his letter, and when the case was called on, he Btated that he had paid up to 1874, but produced only one receipt given by Mr Flett, the new collector, for 20s on account of the 1873 rate. I may saj that whenever a defendant either before or in Court has assured me that he had paid his rates to Mr Hibble, the defaulting collector, I have struck out the items ; as I am convinced tnat although the Government in the absence ot any proper books are unable to ascertain (without summonsing) whether the rate has been paid or not, yet it has no desire to take advantage of any loss of receipts, and further becauee in many cases the defendants are so poor that if the Government get the 1874 rate, and impress the defendant with the conviction that however lax he has been in the past, yet in the future he must pay his rate, sufficient will have been done. So on Holland stating that he had paid up to 1874, and that he only paid 20s ml 8?* because his children were at a private school, 1 told the Court I was content to take judgment for.the smount admitted only. I cannot understand what Holland has to complain of. Not having paid the 1874 rate he cannot complain of being summoned for that and having to pay the cost of the summons. Had he (like most of the others) called and settled before Court by paying for 1874 and explaining the rest or paid the 1874 rate into Court, he would have saved the hearing and solicitor's fees. The Court fees are 2s more (not 4s or 5s as be says) in consequence of claim being made for over £5 when less was due. But most plaintiffs claim more than the Court allows them. It happens every day and I presume always will happen until plaintiffs take the saiue view of cases as defendants, amoral impossibility.—l have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant. W. Acton Adams, Solicitor to the Central Board of Education for the Province of Nelson.