RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 2799, 12 September 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TlMAßU— Tusßdat, Sbft. 11. (Before J. Beswick, Esq., 8.M., and E. Elworthy, J.P.) omii oases. Judgment by default was given m the following cases :— J. Shepherd v. A. Wilkinson, claim £1 3s4J, corti), 7s j Phojnix Brewing Company t. Dr Chilton, claim £2 13j 30, costs 8i j F. and C. H. Hooper v. H. Smitb, claim £6 7a 3d, eoste 16s. J. Wilson v. Jaa. Hay— Claim, £3 lla 6d, Judgment summons. Defendant was ordered lo pay 5s per week, m default 14 days' im prisonraent Two ot three cases wero adjourned for 14 days. B. H. Rhodes v. A. Davies— Claim, £94 18s lOd. Mr Perry f ot plaiati£F, Mr White for defendant. This case was adjourned on the 4th inst. to give Hia Worship lime to consider a question of jurisdiction raised. His Worship now ruled that he had jurisdiction to hear the case, and stated that he would probably give judgment on Friday, 21st mat Jaa. King v. W. D 8 Benzy-Claim £i 10s. Mr Tosswill for plaintiff, Mr Hameraley for defendant. This was a claim for aervice of entire hone Talisman, under a Bpecial arrangement. The evidence disclosed a curious series of mistakes, misunderstandings, or flips of memory on One aide or other. Plaintiff stated that do fendant met him at his stables, and made a special arrangement about the maro ; defendant dented that he had had any interview with plaintiff at hia atiblea on the aubjeot, — it wu one of his men who made the arrangement, i£ any was made. Plaintiff asserted that it wat m accordance with the special ar rangement that he only charged £4 10s, his ordinary charge being £5 6a ; defendant denied any knowledge of such arrangement, and said he would have been willing, and expected to pay the usual charge, whatever it was. Defendant said he met plaintiff m Timaru, and complained that his mare wat not being attended to ; plaintiff denied thai

»ny complaint was made until the account wh »ent m. Plaintiff said his hone Hid not travel the Geraldine disttiot, and that w»» why the arrangement was msde ; defendant said plaintiff told him his ms.ro ought to be attonded to, became the horse was travelling that district. It was shown that defendant acted to some extent m accordance with «uch an arrangement as was describe! by plaintiff, and this fact, with the fact that a chargo other than the usual one win made, induced the Bench to hold that a special arrangement had been made. Judgment was given for amount claimed and costs of Court, 9a ; and of two witnessea, 16s. Jno. Muller r. T. Sullivan. Claim, £40 9*, balance due on au account for board and lodging m 1879, 1880, and 1881. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff, Mr Tosiwill far defendant. The plaintiff having giren his simple evidence, Mr Tosswill produced Gazette notices that defendant had filed his declaration m bankruptcy m September, 1882, and stated the defendant was not yet discharged. Plaintiff admitted that a notice to that effect had been served on him. Hia Worship aaid tbo case was thon beyonrl his jurisdiction, as the defendant's affnira were m the hands of a higher Court. The notices of proceedings m bankruptcy plaoed the case out of the power of this Court. Mr Hamersley asked for a judgment " for what it was worth." His Worship : What would be the good of that ? You could not enforce it. Mr Hsmeralay : That is not for your Wor ship t'> consider ; you might not be asked to enforce it. His Worihip : I have often boon asked to give judgment " for what it is worth," but it teems absurd to give a judgment that cannot be enforced. Show me bow I con do it. Mr Himeraley : It is for the other tide to show tbtt you cannot. Your Worship has often given judgment m similar cases. His Worship : Not m c«e» where there, hns been active opposition. I have done so when I have merely received an intimation that the defondant had filed. Mr Hamersley : The debtor is not discharged of any liability until he gets his discharge from the Bankruptcy Court, and the defendant has not got his discharge. Mr Tosswill eaid his defence was the 25th and 26th clauses of the Debtors and Creditors Aot, which provided that a debtor's goods should be protected against distress, and himself from imprieonment on the proceedings id the B.M. Court. Mr Hamersloy said there was nothing m the Act to prevent a Magistrate from giving judgment. After judgment he muat apply to the District Court for leave to proceed further. He could take his own way of enforcing the judgment, but there was nothing to prevent judgment being given. His Worship said he had determined not to give a judgment. The case would be itruck out. Mr Hamerßley laid he would apply to the Bupreme Court for a mandamus to compel a judgment to be given. His Worship said he would allow the mandamus to be applied for, and when it was proved that ho had to give judgment he would do so. Mr Toßawill asked His Worship to take a note of the fact that notice of the bankruptcy was served upon plaintiff, and that Gazette notices were produced m Court. Mr Hamersley said it would be a pity to put the plaintiff to the expense of a mandamus m such a matter. His Worship : Well, after one is threatened , I think you had better apply for it and have the question tested. This is a different case from those m which there is no opposition m Court. The case was struck out.