RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 260, 1 June 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

( Before T. A. S. Ktnnekslet, Esq.,R.M. Saturday, May 30. There were no police cases on the sheet. Bull v. Mace —Judgment in this case adjourned from the previous day was given. Mr Kynnersley said that he would give judgment for the plaintiff for a certain amount, or the trucks to be returned. Mr Mace, the defendant, said that he would prefer a money verdict to be given at once, for he had sold the trucks and could not return them. Mr Kynnersley then went carefully through the evidence, which, he remarked, agreed on both sides. The trucks in dispute Mr Nees had sworn were not those included in the bill of sale, and though the evidence as to the existence of the other six trucks, spoken of as being in Hokitika, was not satisfactory, there was no evidence to identify the six trucks claimed by the plaintiff as being those mentioned in the bill of sale to the Bank. The counsel for the plaintiff had raised the point that, even if they were, it was not shown that Nees had possession of them at the time the bill of sah was executed, and that under these circumstances, the bill of sale could only be a declaration precedent, and it was necessary that by some new act lie should give that declaration effect. He (the Magistrate) after hearing the cases cited, agreed with this view of the case, and on that ground, as well as no new act as required had been done by Nees, the verdict must be for the plaintiff. He did not think the value put on the trucks excessive, viz : —£l3 6s 8d each, but possession of the six claimed had not been satisfactorily traced, and he should therefore give judgment for the value of five, making £66 13s 4d. For rental lost by plaintiff he should allow four weeks at 30s per week, making £6, and for plaintiff's loss of time in suing for the property, £lO, making a total of £B2 13s. The costs he should allow to witnesses were—Templar, £3 17s; Isaacs, £2; Nees, £2 ; and the professional fee, £3 3s—£ll costs in all. Mr Mace remarked that it was a hard case for him, having bought and paid for the trucks.

Mr Kynnersley could not help that, no doubt defendant had a remedy against some one. After this case was concluded the following interpellation took place;— Mr Kynnersley (addressing Mr Tyler). Mr Tyler. This is the first civil case in which I have sat since my return, and before the Court adjourns I wish publicly to ask you a question. I want to ask if it is true that at a public meeting recently you stated that the administration of justice in this Court was a solemn farce ? Mr Tyler—No, I did not say that the administration of justice in this Court was a solemn farce. What I said was this—that the prosecution of Duffy and another, in connection with Addison's Flat riot, was a solemn farce. Mr Kynnersley—l only wanted to know whether you did say so or not. Mr Tyler—l did say that taking the surrounding circumstances of that case into consideration it appeared like a solemn farce Mr Kynnersley (interrupting Mr Tyler)—l only wanted to know it from your own lips, and after hearing it am surprised that you, a barrister of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, should practice in the Court. Mr Tyler—There is a great difference between saying that a prosecution in one particular case was a solemn farce, and that the administration of justice in the Court generally was a solemn farce. Mr Kynnersley (again interrupting Mr Tyler)—There is not the slightest difference, in my opinion. The Court is adjourned. At the same time Mr Kynnersley got up and left the bench.