RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 5488, 5 December 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, Deo. 5, 1884. (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M.)

Patrick Cronin was charged by Mary Cronin with having assaulted his wife on Monday.— Prisoner pleaded not guilty, — Mary Croniu deposed that accused bad assaulted her in their house in Harrison Street. This was at half-past nine on Monday. Prisoner was drunk, the did not speak to him at all, but he caught her by the hair, and kicked her in the side. No one elflo was present. — By accused ; What plaintiff had said was without truth, He had a few drinks ou Monday, but knew what he was doing. The complainant was really to blamo in the matter, as she had taken hia money, and left the house on Mouday without food. She drank gin, and when in drink she irritated him.— His Worship fined him £3, in default 14 days imprisonment, and bound him over to keep the peace for six months in his own recognisance of £10, and two sureties of £5. BEGaiNG. F. Charles Clinton was charged with being an idle, disorderly person, and begging in town, fie pleaded guilty. He promised to clear away if let off. Hib Worship took his word and discharged him. DRUNK. James Lee pleaded guilty to the charge of being drunk and was fined ss. INTERFERENCE WITH THE POLICE. The same prisoner was charged with obstructing the police.— Constable McLenaghan had found him drunk in; Nixon Street, and told him to go on board the steamer he belonged to. Accused began to get noisy, and would not take his advice. Prisoner afterwards came up to witness and kicked him, and knocked him down. Had to get assistance from the lock-up before he could arrest him. — Prisoner said he had not seen the Constable at all.

The same prisoner pleaded guilty to destroying a shako, value 18s 6d. On the first charge he was fined 40s, in default 7 days ; on the Becond a fine of 5s was inflicted, besides an order to pay 18s 6d, the value of the shako, in default two days' imprisonment. CIVIL OASES. J. Cottle v H. V. Keiaenberg, claim of £1 12s 6d.— Mr Barnicoat asked for a fortnight's adjournment on behalf of the plaintiff. Granted. G. Pringle v * W, Trafford, claim of £6, promissory note for money lent. — Mr F. M. Betts appeared for tho plaintiff. — Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, 21s ; counsel's fee, 21s. Gas Company ,v O. S. Cross, claim of £11 8s 6d, on a judgment summons.— Mr Barnicoat for plaintiffs. — His Worship said he had received a telegram from defendant, stating that he was entirely without means, but would be willing to pay in four months. — Mr Barnicoat accepted this, and an order was made accordingly. G. Harrison v J. Home, claim of £14 15s, on a judgment summons. — Mr S. T. Fitzherbert, for defendant, called attention to the Act, which proved that the debtor might be examined as to the service of the summons. He understood that the defendant was an illiterate person, and did not read the footnote on the summons as to the statute of limitations, and had not taken the steps necessary to have the claim set aside as { being outside the period allowed.— Hs Worship thought he could hardly go behind the judgment. — The defendant said he i was not prepared to pay, and had no offer to make. If he had to pay he would pay 10s a week. Plaintiff accepted this offer, and an order was made accordingly, in default 14 days imprisonment. T. Bush v. W. F. Oakes £7 12s, judgement summons, order made for payment forthwith in default 7 days imprisonment in Wellington gaol,

HOSPITAL WORK.

Timms v. Spurdle, claim £100.— Mr S. T. Fitzherbert for plaintiff and Mr Barnicoat for defendant. — Mr Fitzherbert opened the case by quoting from sections 61 and 63 of the Municipal Corporations Act, showing the penalties attaching to voting in a council while interested in work done for the Council. With regard to the Hospital Board being a separate body he referred to the Wanganui Hospital Act 1878, which gave the Council power to conduct the business of the Hospital. He argued that the working of the Hospital should not be delegated to any other body, although the accounts were kept separate. — Mr Barnicoat admitted that the work was done by Mr Spurdle, and for the purposes of the case he allowed that the work was in progress between the 9th and 23rd September. — G. Brooking clerk to the Borough Council produced the minute book which showed that on the 9th and 23rd September Mr Spurdle was present at the meeting, although the minutes did not show that he took park in the proceedings on the 23rd. A receipt for £20 6s (produced) for work done at the Hospital, was passed by the Council and paid by cheque. Part of the work was recommended by the Visiting Committee ; the other items were not authorised separately. There was a separate account for the Hospital, which the Borough Council only could operate on. The account waa passed on the 2 1st October with other accounts, both Hospital and Borough aocotrats. Witness counter-signed the cheque, and would have done so Lad tho amount been passed by tho Hospital Committee instead of the Borough Council. It was understood that accounts passed by the Hospital Committee should be paid by the Treasurer. Mr Gilmour certified to work in the building line.— By Mr Barnicoat : Mr Adcock only certified to Hospital work. The Hospital fund consisted of contributions from nearly all the local bodies, and the Government supplemented these contributions £ for £. He produced the Hospital minute book. On the 28 th March, 1882, a resolution was passed vesting the management of the Hospital in a committee consisting of the Mayor, four Borough Councillors, and a representative from each of the contributing bodies and Mr Bamber. On the 11th April the Borough Council passed a resolution giviDg the Committeo power to deal with the gonoral management of the Hospital, but large suras were not to be expended without the consent of the Council. On the 10th May, 1882, the Hospital Committee protested against it, and on 23rd May the Borough Council rescinded tho resolution, The management of the Hospital was done by this committee entirely. There were two different bank accounts and bank books, and were kept perfectly distinct. Witness was secretary to the Hospital Committee.— By Mr Fitzherbert : The Hospital fund did not consist of the rents from the Hospital endowments. They were paid into the Hospital fund after the Borough expenses were paid, if any were left, but they were always short of the amount. The deficiencies were paid out of the Borough fund. The money was paid direct into the Borough fund, and then paid out for Hospital work.— Gilbert Carson, Mayor, had given instructions for certain portions of the work charged for in the account produced. He was chairman of the Hospital Committee, and chairman of the Executive Committee. The Visiting Committee were composed of members of the Borough Council. The scullery was recommended by the Visiting Committee, the other items wereordered by himself. He knew of no authority to the Hospital Committee to order work and pay for it, except the power delegated by the Council.— By Mr Barnicoat : The work was done for the Hospital Committee, and mostly on his order. — This was the oase for the prosecution, and no evidence was called for the defence, — Mr "Fitzherbert then addressed the Court, arguing that the Hospital Committee was not a legal body. The Borough Council was the body appointed to conduct the business of the Hospital, and could not delegate the powers of their trust. Of course they would keep their accounts

separate, but it was not intended that the bodies should be separate bodies. It was shown that the accounts were sent to thjb Borough Council, passed by them, and paid by them. He would submit that , it was proved that during the time tho work was m progress Mr Spurdlo and sat and voted, and was then disqualified and liable to penal« ties. — Mr Barnicoat said that the work was done for the body that managed the Hospital, whether that body had a legal existence or not. It wa* idle to contend that the Borough Council had not power to delegate their powers as trustees, they had done bo and no harm had resulted. The Council had handed the management to a committee consisting of members of various local bodies, and when that committeo objected to the restriction as to spending money whioh the Council wished to impose on them, the Council rescinded it. The question was with whom the contract was made, and not with whom it ought to have been made. It waa proved that the payment was mado out of tneHos pitalfund contributed by the local bodien,and the Government, and could not be said to be Borough Council monies. He also contended that the work was done for the managing body of the Hospital, and that being so, the information could not be brought under the Municipal Corporations Act. Under this Act the endowments were given to the Corporations as trustees for the Hospitals, and they were given certain powers whiohahowed that as trustees they were not bound by, the Municipal Corporations Act. He contended that section 61 referred only to work done for the Council under that Act, and not for the Hospital Committee. The last clause of the Wanganui Hospital Act said that the work of the Hospital should be done iv the same manner as the work of the Council— a clause which he argued would not have hi od needed had it been understood that the work of the hospital formed part of the ordinary duties of the Borough Council. He concluded by quoting from the Law Court reports, showing a similar cose had been considered in England, and dismissed. He would ask His Worship to find that the work was done for the Hospital Committee, and done in the belif that the Hospital Committee was a distinct body. Mr Spurdle had taken the contract in good faith. • He also objected as a matter of form that the R.M. Court had nc jurisdiction, the act only giving power to sue for debt or a wrong inflicted, and neither term applied to this case. I Mr Fitzherbert contended that there waß ' jurisdiction, and cited English and Colonial cases in his favour' Mr Barnicoat said he had only mentioned the point as one for consideration. This conoluded the case, and His Worship reserved judgment until 3 o'clock. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. On resuming at three the Court was well filled, considerable interest being shown. Bis Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs, 465, and one witness, 12s 6d. Counsel's fee disallowed.