Humours of the R.M. Court.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 506, 13 September 1890, Page 2

Humours of the R.M. Court.

Those dramatists who take a delight in ridiculing the mode ia which justice is administered in our Courts have often to draw on their imagination, or at least exaggerate a little, in order to raise a laugh from , L hearerB - Had one of the cases heard last Thursday been transferred to a stage without any ex-traneous effects whatever it would have made what is described in the playbills as a side-splittiug farce, and would have made everyone—except perhaps the person who had to pay expenses—twist his sides with laughter. The case was a somewhat prosaic one : a claim for rates by the County Council against John Muldoon. Since the rates became due, Mr Muldoon like a great many other persons, had sought the solace of the Bankruptcy Court, but he omitted to formally plead his discharge. But as this was merely a technical matter, the County clerk waived it. There was, bov - ever, another difficulty in the way, and that was that one of the Justices was interested in the transaction to the extent of being the agent for the landlady, who might, in case Muldoon was found not to be responsible be called upon to pay the rate. This Jnatfc. was likewise required a. a witness for the plaintiff, and under the circumstance, most Magistrates would vacate the bench while the particular case was being heard. Whether it was that he had unparalleled confidence ia his own judgmentandreotitude is not dhc'osed, but nevertheless he did not leave the bench. The case was called, and the Clerk gave his evidence. “Judgment for the plaintiff." said the Justice, without any demur, and then it davtjed upon him that his own evidence was wanted. So he got down off the bench, went into the box, and gave hie evidence in a straightforward manner. The witness divested himself of hia character of one who was to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and once more assuming the rflle of judge, mounted the bench. The evidence of the last witness was evidently eminently satisfactory, for once more the Justice wa. ready to give judgment for the plaintiff, 0 e look ng the faot that it Is usual to let the defendant at least have something to say on the matter. This was called to the Judices’ attention, and the defendant was allowed to state hia side of the ques'ion. The defence set up was that by agreement between tbe parties, the landlady was to pay the rates. Here the Justice bad an argument with the defendant as to the legal cons'ruction of tbe lease, the Justice taking the construction favorabla to the landlady. Then tbe defendant in answer to a question why he had not paid the rate>, maintained he had paid them to somebody else ; this was too much for tbs Justioe. who warned the defendant to be careful what ha was saying, for, sai i he : " I must go into that box and contradict you, and than see wbat * position you would be in." This sounded ominous, and It Is uncertain whether tha Justice would have felt himself warranted, supposing he had contradicted the witness, in oommltiing tha latter to take hia trial to. perjury. Again tbe Justice was ready to deliver judgment, only the County Clark was somewhat doubtful as to their power in tha face of the defendant's bankruptcy, to give such a judgment. Their Worships had doubts themselves, but our Justioe was not daunted by such a alight obs’acle, and so ths judgment was given for plaintiff “for what it was worth," As this is a judgment upon which the court officials would taka tbe usual steps to recover the amount of the judgment it will bo seen that the judgment is worth as muoh as any other one,