THE BANK OF OTAGO (Limited)

NOTICE.

Mr. William James Mudie Larnach,
late of the Bank of New South Wales, has been appointed Colonial Manager of the Bank of Otago (Limited) in room of Mr John Bathgate, resigned.

By order of the Court of Directors.

J. D. THOMSON,
Director.

Dunedin, 9th September, 1867.

Superintendent’s Office,
Southland, 24th Sept., 1867.

THE following communication from the Honourable the Colonial Secretary is published for general information.

By Order,
W. H. AYLMER,
Clerk to Superintendent.

Colonial Secretary’s Office,
Wellington, 9th Sept., 1867.

Sir,—As the various provisions contained in Provincial Laws, relating to the summary recovery of debts or damages under twenty pounds, often create confusion and uncertainty, I have obtained the opinion of the Attorney General on the proper course to be pursued in such legislation with a view to obviating, so far as practicable, these evils, and I enclose, for your Honor’s information, a copy of that opinion.

I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your most obdt. Servant,
E. W. STAFFORD.

His Honor the Superintendent,
Southland.

Extract from Memorandum of Attorney General, dated 21st August, 1867.

In Provincial Legislation it seems to be very generally lost sight of that there exists a general law in New Zealand, under which debts or damages under £20 may be recovered in a summary way before a Resident Magistrate or two Justices of the Peace. It is unnecessary, therefore, for Provincial Legislatures to provide for the recovery of such claims.

I think they might legally make certain provisions with regard to Resident Magistrates’ Courts in cases up to £20, in the direction of altering the civil jurisdiction of such courts in such cases. But if the object in view in any Ordinance is to provide for recovery of damages, such as from trespass from cattle, or for debts such as rates, then it is unnecessary, because provision is already made by the law of the Colony. The Provincial Legislatures, I think, have not kept in mind the existence and jurisdiction of these Courts, but have legislated in the manner which is in practice in England and the Colonies generally. Justices have in England and elsewhere no ordinary or general civil jurisdiction; wherever it is intended that damages for trespass or such like cases, or moneys, such as rates shall be recoverable before Justices, a special provision must be made, giving the jurisdiction. Here such a provision is unnecessary; the Justices under the Resident Magistrates’ Act already have it. Again, in the Act now before me, and I have observed the same in many Provincial Acts, the Provincial Legislation does not first take away or limit the right to damages in the particular case; this, I think, such a Legislature may do; for instance, it might, I think, provide that no owner or occupier of land unfenced shall be entitled to, or no owner of cattle shall pay, damages beyond, for instance, £20, in the case of a trespass on land of any kind, whether fenced or otherwise, &c. Such a provision might or might not be a proper one, but it would be within the Legislative power of a Provincial Council. If such a provision was made no damages beyond the amount specified could be recovered in any Court, whether in the Supreme Court or District Court, or before Justices. The right to damages would have been taken away, the question of jurisdiction therefore would not arise, or as to mode of recovery of damage over the specified amount. If the right were limited to £50, or £100, or £200, or any other sum, then such sums could be recovered in any Court of competent jurisdiction. Up to £100 in a Resident Magistrates’ Court with extended jurisdiction, or up to £200 in a District Court with extended jurisdiction, or up to any amount in the Supreme Court. But as to the mode of recovery, or the Court in which the claim is to be prosecuted, the Provincial Legislature need not, and in cases over £20, cannot legislate.