S.M. COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXIII, Issue 67, 3 April 1901, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

Tuesday, 2nd April.—Before R. L Stanford, Esq., S.M. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. Judgment by default was given in the fallowing cases :—Richmond and Hutcheos v. F. Mischowski, claim and cojts £l2 7s Id ; A. L. Tuke v. R. B. Honeyfield, 17s 2d ; A. Irvine v. Taylor, £7 12s 6d; N. King v. Henry Preston, £lO 10s. TOLL-GATE CASE. R. Morris v. James M'CaUum, claim

Thiß was a ckim for tolls alleged io be due to plaintiff by defendant for pissing through tho Omata gate. Ti\o case had been -adjourned from Monday week by the S.M. to enable him to decide whether hj would hear the case nntil the decision of the Oourt of Appeal was given. The S.M. said ha had taken a week to.ton?ider this question, and he bad j decided under Section 19, of the Magistrates Act, to adjourn the case to the! Cit'i August, or as afc«*r as the decision of tho Court of Appeal sitting in July was given in the case now before it; conditional, however, on the amount chimsd together with £4 casts being paid into Oonrt. In reply to Mr, Govett, who said his client was not in Court, the S.M. said ha would allow three days in which to comply with this condition. Mr, Spence asked tb.it there be aided to the costs a sum. by way of co up itisation for loss of time in recovering the claim, as provided for under Sections 148 and 149. The S.M.: Should not this have been claimed at the time of the summons.

Mr. Spence; No, Your Worship, because till the case was concluded we could not tell what time the case would take; afte? considering the clauses reid by M>. Spence, the S.M. said he would bear Mr. Govett. Mr. G wett contended that the claim should have been put in at the time the summons was issued. lb was a monstrous clum, more especially as he had agreed to make certain admissions with the view of reducing the costs. It wai a piece of robbery. The P.M. said the sections read by Mr Spence were quite novel but certainly seemed to bear out his contention and to support a claim, for compensation tar delay in reaeiving tolls and loss of time in recovering. Mr. Gavett said at any rate he was entitled to hare notice of the claim, and no such notice had been given and no such claim pot in until new. The S.M. said it appeared tq him to be on all fours with the question of costs and expenses of witnesses. Mr. Govett contended it was a distinct claim and should have been put in only aft«r due notice. Mr. Sponce said it was in the nature of a penalty. He had given }A t r. Govett verbal notice. It was simply a question cf law and his learned friend I should know that his client should know the law and that if he broke the the law he was liable for all the consequences. Ho held that his Worship was found to take, notice of the length of titn,a his client was kept out of his moaey and the loss of time in recovering it. He should ask fer a reasonable penalty say £2 2s. After some further argument the S.M. said the cast would be adjourned to the sth August on the condition ha had stated, with an additional 20s for campeasa'ioa.

In reply to Mr. Spenco. the S.M. said ho, oould not say what action ho 1 would take in other oases, which might be brought, till the case was before him. [ He could quite conceive of cases arising 'that he would not consider himself bound. v He would prefer, however, I not to give a general deciiioa. Mr. Speace said there was a preba- , bility of a mandamus being applied for directing His Worship to hoar this casa. In the event of such as application heing made would His Worship waive all technicalities aijd deaide to lot it go on the main question. The S.M. said he would prefer to be asked this question in his room in say half-an-hour's time, where perhaps Mr. Govfltt would also make it co ivenient. toattand, Mr. Govett agreed and the, dropped. *' r |