TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMARU HERALD.

Timaru Herald, Volume V, Issue 110, 16 June 1866, Page 3

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMARU HERALD.

Sir, — Allow me to call the attention of your readers to the case of Jagger v. Forward, not with a view of impug-ning' the decision of the Resident Magistrate, but to make public a pitfall m our commercial jurisprudence. The facts of the case ai'e very simple. I received Mr. Jaegers' terms for two boys for £80 per annum, £20 per quarter, to be paid m advance, without any conditions. They went to the school on the 7th September, and left on the 14th December. In January, Mr. Jajrger called for the balance of his account, when I told him I supposed I owed £9 ; he said £8 10s would satisfy him. I replied, as I was m haste, if there was any difference, I would either pay or take. I had the value received, and he the money. I paid him all he asked, and, as a man of business, supposed all was settled. As you are aware, I was summoned last week for £19 17s; the verdict was against me, upon the plea that Mr. Jag-gers' quarter had terminated on the 6th December instead of the 14th December, when die holidays commenced, and the boys returned. I had no intimation of the termination of the quarter, and supposed, as is usual, that the bill would be made up to the holidays. Be it remembered, Mr. Jagger told me m January, when I ottered him a cheque for £9, that £8 10s would cover his demand.

The custom of the trade or profession is well known. Boys leave school for the holidays with the bills m their pockets to that date, containing the whole of their parent's liabilities. As to the right of a schoolmaster to enforce a quarter's notice, it has been decided by one of the most eminent judges m England, that it cannot be confirmed m law or equity. This decision, as it may effect numbers m this province, I will hereafter send you, if you please, for publication. Equity, m its literal, if not legal sense, implies mutual obligation ; that is to say, m this case, I might have sued .Tagger if he had the right to sue me, for £19 17s, had he retired from the school and not completed the quarter m question. A bill of exchange has no legal validity, if value is not received; for the £19 17s I have not had the least consideration.

A schoolmaster stands m the same position as other tradesmen who keep a staff to attend to nnd meet the requirements of their customers — the boardinghouse, the inn, and others ; but they have vet to learn that, by an application to a legal tribunal, a sum can be obtained m consequence of an inconvenience or expense n loss of patronage may entail. If I had wronged Mr. Jagger, he might have sued me for damages ; that was his course : the question would have been an equitable one. The board, lodging, <Stc, for the quarter would have cost something; his loss cannot, be estimated at more than the profit lor that period. With regard to keeping the boys, and founding a claim for a quarter tliereon, from the 6th to the 14th December, is a trick too transparent to be mistaken. I trouble you with these remarks, as the case is a most important one, and should be generally known to parents. They may be unable to continue the education of their children; they may die, but the inexorable schoolmaster says, " Give me the money." Such a law is a deformity, and the sooner it is expunged from a Christian statute book, the better. I am, &c, H. Forward.