RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XII, Issue 819, 18 January 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THURSDAy, January 16. [Before D. S. Durie, Esq., R.M., Colonel Gorton, J.P , and J. Willcox, Esq., J.P.]

Mr H. B. Roberts summoned John Jones for the sum of £2O, which he claimed in terms of a certain agreement relative to the sale of Jones’ land on the No. 2 line. The defendant required to sell the land referred to, and the plaintiff said he would guarantee £IBO for it, whereupon it was agreed between the two that any amount which the land might bring over and above the guaranteed sum of £IBO should be equally divided between the plaintiff and defendant. The land sold for £240, leaving £3O to the plaintiff under this curious agreement. The sum was restricted to £2O to bring it within the R. M. jurisdiction. Defendant did not deny that there had been such an agreement, but that plaintiff, fearing the property might not come to £IBO, had sought to get io. Tiie x>encn gave judgment fur plaintiff with costs. James Neville summoned Mrs Reid, Fordell, for wages for four weeks and four days, at the rate of 20s per week Disagreements had arisen and the rate of wages was denied, 15s per week being offered. The Bench held that the latter sum was enough and gave judgment accordingly. Robert Hume, Fordell, summoned James Neville (the plaintiff in the previous case) for £ls, alleged damage to a horse lent to defendant. It appeared, from the evidence, that the defendant had used the horse brutally, although he tried to blunt the edge of the charge by alleging that no summons would have .been taken out against him if he had not summoned Mrs Reid for his wages. The Bench, after consultation, gave it as their decision that the case must be dismissed, as no action for damages could arise where the animal or thing was lent. Major Durie, however, intimated that Neville was open to a prosecution for cruelty to animals. Mr Roberts (who appeared for plaintiff) demurred to the judgment of the Court, and craved for a week’s adjournment, when he said he would be able to show that it was perfectly legal to give damages for injury in such cases as the one which had been before the Bench. Adjourned accordingly-

[lt is only on rare occasions, as our readers well know, that we refer in the way of animadversion to the action of the Bench, and we never do so without reluctance. But we cannot help saying that the only tendency of giving a judgment, as in the above case, and immediately thereafter cancelling it, at the bidding of a practitioner of the Court, must be to lower the dignity of the Bench and to deprive its decisions of that weight and influence to which they are or ought to be entitled.]

Friday, January 17. [Before D. S. Durie, Esq., R.M.] James Thurston summoned William Finnimore for damage to a field of growing crop, caused by eleven horses belonging to defendant. There was a cross case, in which plaintiff and defendant changed sides, Mr Finnimore claiming trespass dues for a mob of Mr Thurston’s cattle found grazing for several days on his land. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs, each in his respective case.