FARMER BENNETTS BAWBEES.
THE UNPAID-FOR HONEYMOON
A DOUR OBJECTOR TO DEEVIL CARRIAGES.
A Grumpy Grandpaw — A Horse that Died — The "Pickle" caused by the Pickled Wheat.
Magistrate Bartholomew, who presides over the scales of Justice down south, had a somewhat novel case to adjudicate upon on Thursday last week, in the sleepy old town of Milton, situate thirty-six miles from dour Dunedin. The town itself is a dead and alive one-horse show, its only claim to notoriety being that it is the centre of that thirsty electorate which periodically returns to Parliament "Jimmy" Allen, of Hoyd Garlick fame, and boasts a Scotsbyterian parson who works himself into "reelegus" frenzy, and denounces dancing and horse racing as weapons of "Old Nick," which indiscriminately lead to immorality and eternal damnation.
From such surroundings anything may evolve, and the great unwashed who attend "Barty's" Court had a gala day, when an old hayseed from the back o' beyond at Lovell's Flat, named James Bennett, sued his step-grandson, Thomas Bennett Hamilton, a science master at Otago's exclusive seat of learning, for tucker, etc., consumed by him and his blushing bride on their honeymoon trip to the Flat, evidently, spent in a tent on
GRANDPA'S GRASSY SWARDS, and on other occasions when the inculcator of science teachings into Otago's dour Scots bairns betook himself, wife and weans. to visit the hoary-headed cockatoo. The- claim was so unusual i its composition that our correspondent may be pardoned for giving it in full, as published in the "Bruce Herald."
Thomas Bennett Hamilton, Science Master, University, North-East Valley.
Dr. to James Bennett, farmer, Lovells Flat, In the sum of £2 l6s l0d.
To use and occupation of a cosy corner in my orchard, and all necessary appliances to make a tent comfortable for you to spend your honeymoon in, when you got married 10s 0d
To use of my horse and trap to take your bride a drive on pleasure, same time 5s 0d
To food for you both for four weeks £8 0s 0d
To keeping your horse Scamp one year £2 12s 0d
To advertising him for sale 2s 6d
To repairing fence broken down by him in getting into my wheat and destroying two sacks 7s 4d
To eating and otherwise destroying four bushels of seed wheat, pickled ready for sowing — which killed him 17s 6d
To use of team to drag him off the field 5s 0d
To burning and burying, according to the Act 10s 0d
To trespassing on my property by driving your family about my grounds in a motor-car 10s 0d
To sticking us up, a la bushrangers, and keeping possession of my front rooms and bedding all night — 9 hours 18s 0d
To use and occupation of my garden for tent, and things required to make tent suitable for you to do special business for the Government, at extra fees, during Christmas holidays 10s 0d.
To board and lodging for self and family, with freedom of grass field for pleasure and games, in a very healthy locality, away from the noise, smoke, and stinks of Dunedin, for five weeks £10 0s 0d
To stand for safety and protection of motor car, sheltered from the weather by my shrubbery 10s 0d
(Total) £25 17s 4d
Less contra account 4s 0d
Total £21 6s 10d
NOTE — No lawyer's fees, if settled out of court.
The cause of the Otago University science master was championed by Mr. P. B. Adams (of Adams Bros., licensing legislation cheque notoriety), whilst old Bennett, in reply to his Worship if he would like a solicitor, showed his Scots carefu'ness and individuality by saying,
"I CANNA AFFORD ANE." When asked to state his case, plaintiff quickly got into his stride, and settled down to a long gallop, raking up the family history almost extending back to the period of Captain Cook's discovery of God's Own Country. He was repeatedly told by the Magistrate to confine himself to the statement of claim, but to little purpose. It was finally elicited plaintiff had rendered his account on four occasions, receiving no reply from his loving grand-stepson, who was too busy explaining scientific phenomena. Plaintiff did not consider the items exorbitant.
Under cross-examination by the licensing legislation lawyer, it was discovered the whole trouble lay in the fact that the man of "culchaw" had purchased a "motah," upon hearing which Grandpaw Bennett had written to his De'il's buckie of a step-grandson warning him not to come within coo-ee of his property with the infernal machine. Such was his rooted antipathy to "motahs" that it aroused his Heeland blood even to see a picture of one, and he had written letters to the "Bruce Herald" condemning these
NEW-FANGLED DEEVIL CAIRRIGES Defendant, in evidence, stated it had been customary for grandpa to collect all the family at Christmas to partake of the prime turkey and plum pudding, and, when leaving after the last cup, he had offered the old gentleman a "five-pun" note to assist in paying the storekeeper, which he resented - the old gent., not the storekeeper. Had never received any claim until after purchasing the motor car, when plaintiff wrote asking witness to assist him in paying his debts. Plaintiff had since sent several disagreeable letters on family matters.
In reply to the Magistrate, plaintiff stated that there had been no previous agreement re paying the items claimed.
The Magistrate said plaintiff had no case, and gave judgment for defendant.
The old man from the Flat thanked the Court for its patience, and left its precincts with a further debt of £2 2s for professional fees added to his tale of woe. -NZ Truth, 4/10/1913.
What are we to make of this, 110 years later? It is as amusing now as when it was first published. The various litigations of Mr James Bennett must have frustrated his neighbours and amused readers in turn. Here is a selection of his remarkable performances.
Was he a man of stalwart righteousness? An intellectual bully? The reader must decide.
MAGISTERIAL
R M Court, Milton
BENNETT V. CURRIE AND GORDON.
Claim, £10, damages sustained by plaintiff through an assault committed on him by the defendants.
Mr Mouatt for the plaintiff, Mr Reid for defendants.
There was a second action, Bennett v. Currie and Currie, whereby the plaintiff sought to recover £18 damages for knocking down a fence, the property of plaintiff. By an agreement between the counsel, it was agreed that the evidence given in the assault case should apply to the other also.
James Bennett deposed that he was a settler residing at Lovell's Flat, upon property adjoining Matthew Tweed's. On November 29th he saw William and Alexander Currie taking the wire off his fence. He asked William to show his authority for doing so, and he said he had none. He said he was going to take the fence down altogether. Tweed met him on the ground, and they satisfied Currie that it was their boundary fence conjointly. The first part of the fence was put up 19 years ago. They insisted upon the wire being replaced. He agreed to put up a new wire, as he had put the old wire on a new fence he had built, and did so. On the next day he saw Gordon and Currie on the ground. Went across to them, and found that Currie had begun to dig the fence down, Gordon showing him where to begin. He asked Currie to wait while he spoke to Gordon about it. Without a word he seized him by the throat with the left hand, and lifted him off the ground with the right hand, and chucked him backwards on the fence. There was a very steep gully the other side, into which he tried to throw him. He held on to Currie to save himself. Had he gone down his neck must have been broken, and he would never have lived to tell the tale. It was 34 foot from the top of the fence to the bottom of the gully. His wife arrived in time to save him from falling. His senses were half gone, and he did not know what she did. Gordon told Currie to let him alone. When he recovered he went to the younger Currie (Alexander), and asked him to stop removing the fence until Gordon showed his order, which he did. Upon asking Gordon for his authority he said that the men had got his orders. He then went to Currie and said "You see he has got no order. Let my fence alone, you have as much right to pull my house down, as you have this fence." Currie then struck at him, he dodged the blow, but Currie aimed with such force that he came and knocked him over, and fell upon him. He then called to some men working on the road, and also asked Alexander Currie to stop working which he did until urged on by Gordon. Just as he was speaking, he heard his wife scream behind him, and saw William Currie with his arms around her about to throw her on the ground. He (witness) sprung on him behind with his arm around his neck, and tried to pull him backwards. He was naked to the waist, so he had to do it that way. He believed he pulled off a portion of Currie's shirt in the first encounter. Just then Gordon sprung at him and seized him by the beard. The next moment he found himself on the ground with Gordon. William Currie struck him while he was on the ground. He was hit twice very severely and stunned. When he came to his senses he called to the road men, who were about 400 yards away, to hurry up. Again asked Gordon for his authority in the presence of Tough, but he did not do so. He then went to William Currie, and in the presence of Tough said "You see he shows no authority. Let my fence alone." He seized him in his arms, and throw him to the ground, falling with him and making the blood flow from his nose. Tough took him off, and he (witness) left then. They completed taking down 8 chains of the fence, and took the wire away.
Cross-examined — He knew the members of the Crichton Road Board, and had made an agreement with them with reference to piece of ground for roadway, about 6 chains long and containing 1 rood, in exchange for a road-line of which this disputed road-line was a continuation. He could not swear himself that that part of the fence was up for 19 years, the other part had been erected for 6 years. It was true that when he came out, Currie, without speaking, seized him by the throat (witness wanted to illustrate the seizure upon defendants' counsel who objected). He gave him no provocation. Was sure he tried to throw him into the gully. He believed Currie could run away with him under one arm. Before he lost his breath he called his wife. Did not know she had a, revolver (weapon produced). She did not point the revolver to any man and threaten to blow his brains out. He did not see his wife lay on to Curries back with a stick. Saw wales but did not know who placed them there. He did not know how it was the pistol was taken by Gordon. He knew the Board had had the road pegged out. Before they started on the road and pulling down his sod fence a new fence was nearly completed on Tweed's side. If his fence were left the road would be only 6ft. wide in some parts. The pegs had been down 3 years.
Re-examined — It was 2 or 3 days before he could eat dry food. Had done no work since. Had not employed a doctor. The value of the fence was about £1 per chain.
To Mr Reid — The fence was not useless. There were 2 gaps, but half a day's work by two men would make it all right. He thought he had £10 taken out of him by the assault. The next day he did a little jobbing about.
Mary Bennett, wife of plaintiff, deposed that on the 30th of last mouth she saw Currie and Gordon. She went with her husband at his special request to hear what was said. When they arrived Currie got her husband on the fence trying to throw him into the gully, which was about 34 feet deep. She presented an old pistol at Currie. It was not loaded, and had been lying on the chimney-piece for 2 or 3 years. Was glad she took it. Her husband was knocked down again, and hit on the head. Gordon stood by looking on. Currie threw his arms around her and wrenched the pistol out of her hands. Currie had nothing on but his trousers and boots. Her husband hung on to his shirt and tore some off, and he took the rest off himself. Her husband was hurt on the temple and back of the head. He was not bleeding but the places wore swollen and not much discoloured. She called to some workmen who came. Tough took Currie off. Her husband was not able to swallow afterwards.
Cross-examined — Her husband knew before they left the house that there would be unpleasantness and she therefore took the revolver with her. She never touched Currie, but he threw her down and wrenched the pistol out of her hand. Did not seize him by the back and tear his shirt off. She struck Currie with the stick because he had her husband down and was hitting him. She struck him three times as hard as she could. He had nothing on but his trousers and boots. Saw him take his shirt off. On her oath her husband did not rush at Currie. It was not true that Gordon came to separate them.
John Tough, contractor, remembered the 30th of last mouth. He was working about 500 or 600 yards from where the parties were. Heard a noise. Saw sort of fighting. At last went up. Before they got there, Bennett was crying for assistance. He said they were a lot of fools, and ought to drop it. There was a sort of rough and tumble fight. Bennett had a black eye, and his nose was bleeding. He did not see Gordon doing anything.
Dennis Hassett gave similar evidence to the last witness.
Matthew Tweed said that he bought his land from the Crown about 22 years ago. He erected a fence as near the boundary as he could about 19 years ago. A part of that taken down was put up for him. He did not see anything of the row. The fence was not in good repair, but it cost a good deal. They stopped taking down until they had erected a new fence. He gave them no authority to pull down the fence.
To Mr Reid — He did not know whether the sod fence had been erected on the proper boundary line or not.
For the defence, Mr Reid contended that there was no case against the defendants upon either information. He would raise the point that the Court had no jurisdiction, under the "Justices of the Peace Act, 1882." It would be proved by Mr Grigor that the fence pulled down by defendants was not on Bennett's ground at all, but encroached on Tweed's land a distance of 40 links. The survey was made in December, 1880, and the plan prepared by Mr Grigor had since been certified to by Mr Arthur, the Chief Surveyor. Did he succeed in proving this to the satisfaction of the Court, then it would be evident that a question of title would be involved, in which case the Court would have no jurisdiction.
John C. Gordon, Clerk to the Crichton Road Board, deposed that on November 30 he went to Bennett's property, because he had been informed that Bennett prevented the men from levelling the fence. When he got on the ground Bennett was coming from his house. The moment Currie put spade in the ground Bennett told him to leave his property alone, and placed himself in front of Currie, and prevented him from working. A scuffle ensued, and Currie took him by the collar of the coat, and tried to put him over the fence. There was no attempt on Currie's part to throw plaintiff into the gully. Up to this time Currie did not use Bennett roughly. Bennett's wife came and presented a pistol. He (witness) told Bennett that if they had done anything wrong he had a remedy at law. He recommended Currie to go on with his work. He made a start, when Bennett caught him by the shoulder, and they had a tussle. Bennett's wife ran about with the revolver. During the scuffle half of Currie's shirt was torn off. They had three falls, but no blows. Currie went up behind Mrs Bennett, and took the revolver from her. He did not attempt to throw her down. When attempting to get the revolver Bennet caught Currie by the forelock with one hand and his throat with the other. He said to A. Currie "Go and separate them," but he would not. He (witness) got off his horse and got hold of Bennett by his coat and whiskers to release Currie. The moment he collared Bennett, he let Currie go and went for him, and they fell with Bennett on the top. He had no hold of him, and Currie and the wife fell on top of them. In the tumble he dropped the stick produced. The first he saw of it afterwards was Mrs Bennett belaboring Currie with it on his bare back. There were three welts as thick as his finger. Currie got the revolver and handed it to him. Bennett and his wife then cooeed to some men working a distance off, and Currie and the others set to work. When the men came on the ground Bennett asked him for his Magistrate's authority, to which he replied that there was not one needed. Currie did not act violently towards Bennett. He did not think that Bennett suffered any damage. He met him in Milton the same evening, and the next day at Lovell's Flat. He could not imagine that he had a sore throat. He was also in Dunedin on the following Monday. The fence, which was an old sod fence, was 44 links on Tweed's Bide of the road pegs.
Cross-examined — His business there was as Inspector of Works for the Road Board. He claimed no personal right to interfere, but was there in consequence of instructions. He was only aware that Bennett claimed the fence on September 1st, and did not know until his arrival that Bennett objected to its removal.
William Currie and Alexander Currie corroborated the evidence of the last witness.
Robert Grigor, Government Surveyor, identified the plan produced as that of a survey of a road partly through Bennett's property and partly through Tweed's. It was not on the proper boundary line between sections 4 and 5 according to the Crown Grant. According to the plan Bennett got the full acreage mentioned in the grant. When starting to make a survey he always looked for the oldest and most traditional marks. It was almost impossible to get the old pegs. Mr Arthur certified to the plan, and he therefore believed it to be correct. He was quite sure the sod fence was in section 4. It encroached 44 links at the S. E. end, and 40 links at the N. W. end.
To Mr Mouatt — He had no evidence to show that the sod fence was the original boundary, but should be inclined to say it was not. He found no such discrepancies as were alleged to be there anywhere else. He had known errors of from 10 to 15 links. There were many sources of error in surveying. Had seen figures transposed. The surveys had been very correct for the last 20 years. He believed that the new survey was correct, and corresponded with the Crown grant.
Re-examined — The block road was a recognised base line. Any person surveying a section would start from a road-line. He should not expect to find an error of 40 links in 19 chains. When he found the sod fence was so much out as it was, he was particularly careful, and went over it three or four times. He did not remember ever finding such errors in old surveys as 40 links in 19 chains. He had no hesitation in saying that the sod fence was not on the proper boundary line.
His Worship said that after hearing the evidence he decided that the cases must be struck out, as they were out of the jurisdiction of the Court. Cases struck out, with costs to defendants; professional fee £1 1s, witnesses £1 1s, in each case. -Bruce Herald, 14/12/1883.
DISTRICT ROAD BOARD.
CRICHTON.
The ordinary monthly meeting of the above board was held on Saturday. Present — Messrs Bryce (chairman), Bowie, Robson, and Morrison. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. A letter was read from D. Hassett asking for a refund of his deposit, on the ground that he had made a mistake in his calculations. It was resolved that the deposit be forfeited.
The following letter from Mr J. Mouat, solicitor, Dunedin, was read: —
"Mr James Bennett has placed in my hands your letter referring to a resolution of your Board of the 5th inst., and offering £8 10s as compensation for the fence taken down by William Currie. He instructs me to say that he has incurred costs about this matter amounting to £7 through the action of the Board, including £4 4s awarded by the Court, to be paid as costs in the two actions; that had you offered the £8 10s at first he would not have incurred this expense, and that if the Board had not set up the defence of want of jurisdiction the Magistrate would have decided the case. He is now compelled to seek a remedy by action in the Supreme Court, but is willing to accept the amount you offer, together with the costs above mentioned, and waive any claim he may have to dispute your title to the land in future. This offer is without prejudice. He has instructed me to commence an action against Currie for the assault, and this offer is not to be construed as in anyway to affect his rights in that action."
Messrs Bryce and Hewitson reported that they had interviewed Mr Bennett, and, as authorised by the Board, offered to erect new fence, or to allow the sum of £8 10s for erection. Mr Bennett would not accept the offer. It was resolved to adhere to the offer made to Mr Bennett by Messrs Bryce and Hewitson, the Clerk to inform Mr Mouat to that effect. -Bruce Herald, 5/2/1884.
Bruce County Council (excerpt)
John C. Gordon requested the council to defend an action brought against him by James Bennett while he was acting as a servant of the late Crichton Road Board. — The council resolved to take no action in the meantime. -Otago Daily Times, 5/8/1885.
NEW ADVERTISEMENTS.
NOTICE.
I JAMES BENNETT, hereby agree to abandon the case of Bennett versus Gordon and Currie, and do so at the request of Mr Henry Clark and the Rev. Jas. Chisholm, not because I have the slightest doubt of the justice of my claim, or any fear of losing the case when it comes before the Court, but purely from sympathy with Mr J. C. Gordon and his family in his present state of health, and from a desire to relieve him from unnecessary anxiety or expense.
As witness my hand this 15th day of September, 1885.
JAMES BENNETT.
Henry Clark
Jas. Chisholm (witnesses) -Bruce Herald, 22/9/1885.
John Gordon's health failed him, at the age of 44, the following January.
A few years later James Bennett, who had been a member of the Lovells Flat School Committee for some time, was at the centre of another controversy.
LOVELLS FLAT SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING.
In your issue of the 29fch ult. you have a report of the above school committee meeting, held on the 22nd, by your Lovells Flat correspondent, who was not present. As a member of the school committee permit me to state in reply that your correspondent's report is the reverse of facts, and his statement as to the cause of the meeting a deliberate falsehood.
The following extracts from the minutes of the committee and correspondence will fully corroborate the above statements: —
At a meeting of the committee held on the 9fh February last the Chairman reported that Mr Charles Bowie had called on him and complained that the head teacher had acted unfairly at the recent, examination for prizes, his boy being placed third instead of being made dux, as, Mr Bowie said, he should be. He (the chairman) had made it his duty to call on the teacher and ask for an explanation. The teacher denied having acted unfairly in the examination for prizes, and challenged Mr Bowie to prove his charges.
No resolution was moved in the matter, several members of the committee being of the opinion that the matter should drop, as at every examination for prizes some were offended because their children did not get enough of prizes.
At a meeting of committee held on March 12th, a letter was read from the head teacher. — (See letter No. I. appended.)
The resolution contained in letter No. II. was carried unanimously — all the members of committee being present — and was sent to Mr Bowie.
Mr Bowie called on the chairman in reply to the letter sent to him by the committee, and I received letter No. III. from the chairman.
A meeting of the committee was held on Friday, the 22nd. The business specified was to hear Mr Bowie's charges against the teacher. There were present — Messrs Calder (chairman), Butcher, Bryce, Bennett, Hewitson, Wilson, and Nelson (secretary).
The teacher and Mr Bowie were also present. The Chairman, after the minutes of the previous meeting had been read and confirmed, read letters Nos. I. and II., and then asked Mr Bowie to prove the statements he had made with reference to the teacher's action at the recent examination for prizes.
Mr Bowie, on being called upon, refused to make any statement.
Mr Bennett, who was armed with several old Hansards and law books in a bag, moved — "That the chairman leave the chair," as according to ail the law of England and New Zealand no man could sit and be both judge and jury in a case.
The secretary said this was not a court of law, but simply a meeting of committee, and the business was to hear what Mr Bowie had to say.
Mr Bennett then turned round to Mr Bowie, and raising his hand over his head besought Mr Bowie not to say a word until they got the chairman removed.
The secretary said that Mr Bennett was trying to bluff the enquiry, and it was a ridiculous proposition to ask the chairman to leave the chair.
The Chairman said he would not leave the chair, and he again asked Mr Bowie to prove the statements he had made against the teacher.
Mr Bowie denied making any statement against the teacher.
Mr Wilson said that Mr Bowie had met him and stated that the teacher cheated at the examination for the prizes, as his boy ought to have been dux. Did Mr Bowie now deny having told him (Mr Wilson) that the master cheated?
Mr Bowie denied it.
Mr Wilson: Will Mr Bowie be good enough to state what he said to me on the road leading to the station with reference to the teacher?
Mr Bowie declined to make any answer to this question.
Mr Hewitson said the chairman was to blame for the whole thing; he ought, not to have told the teacher what Mr Bowie said to him about the prizes.
The secretary said that Mr Hewitson was blaming the chairman for telling what Mr Bowie now denies having told him, and as Mr Bowie denies having told the chairman anything, how can he be guilty of telling what Mr Bowie said?
Mr Hewitson said the chairman was to blame. Mr Bowie had told him in confidence, and he ought not to have repeated it.
The Chairman said when Mr Bowie came to him and made the charges against the teacher he considered it his duty to make enquiries into the matter and bring it before the committee, because if the teacher was guilty of such action he ought to be censured by the committee, and if he was not guilty Mr Bowie ought to apologise, and withdraw the statements he had made, and he again asked Mr Bowie to prove the charges he had made against the teacher.
Mr Bowie still declined to make any statement, although repeatedly called upon to do so.
At this stage considerable confusion occurred; Mr Hewitson defying the ruling of the chair, and Mr Bennett still quoting law that the chairman should leave the chair.
The secretary said the whole discussion was irregular, as there was no motion before the meeting, and moved — "That as Mr Bowie refused to prove the charges against the teacher, or make any statement with reference to them, that the committee adjourn."
Mr Bennet opposed the adjournment. What he wanted was to get a new chairman, and then they would get things in proper order for the enquiry.
Mr Wilson said that it did not matter who was in the chair. Mr Bowie had a plain course before him. He had been asked to come and prove the charges he had made against the teacher, and if there was any manliness in him, now was his opportunity.to clear himself. If Mr Bowie had nothing to say ,he would second the motion that the committee adjourn.
Mr Bennet moved, and Mr Hewitson seconded — "That the committee do not adjourn."
The secretary then said: Before the amendment is put to the meeting I have a few words to say to Mr Bowie. He (Mr Bowie) has coupled my name with the teacher's as acting unfairly in the recent distribution of prizes. I came here to-night to hear him prove that I did so, and what do we find? That instead of attempting to prove anything, he takes exceptions to the words he is said to have used, and when finally pressed to state the words he used he denies having said anything at all, although we have the evidence of the chairman, Mr Wilson, Mr Bryce, and the teacher, that he made the charges complained of. — Mr Nelson here characterised Mr Bowie's conduct in very strong language, and continued: — I challenge him to prove that I ever by word or deed acted as he has charged me with in the distribution of the prizes." As he makes no response I have now before the committee and householders present to assert that these charges made against me are totally devoid of any foundation whatever.
The amendment on being put was lost, and the motion on being put was carried by four to two votes, Mr Butcher refusing to vote, and the committee adjourned.
A. C. Nelson, Secretary School Committee.
Correspondence above referred to: — Lovells Flat, March 11, 1889. The Chairman.
Dear Sir, — Mr Bowie has charged me with partiality at the recent examinations for prizes. Now, as these charges affect both pupils and teacher, I think Mr Bowie should apologise, or be asked by the committee to prove his statements.
— I am, sir, yours truly, J. A. Robertson, Teacher.
____________________________________________
Lovells Flat, March 12, 1889.
Sir, — By direction of the chairman school committee I have to inform you that the head teacher has written to the committee stating that you are going about accusing him of partiality in the distribution of prizes at the late school examination, and as the charges made affect both the teacher and the pupils he requests the committee to ask you to prove your statements or withdraw them. And I have further to state that his letter was considered by the committee at a meeting held to-night, and it unanimously agreed to the following resolution: — "That the committee request you either to withdraw the statements made or to appear before the committee and prove them." I have also to add that the teacher and the committee will afford you every opportunity at their disposal to enable you to prove the charges that you have circulated with reference to the distribution of prizes at the late examination. If you will be good enough to name a date the committee will be prepared to arrange for a meeting.
— Yours truly, Alex. Nelson, Secretary School Committee.
_____________________________________________________
Mr Charles Bowie, Lovells Flat.
Lovells Flat, March 18, 1889.
Mr A. Nelson, Secretary School Committee.
Dear Sir, — Mr Bowie wants to meet the committee. Better call a meeting to enquire into the charges made by him against the teacher for Friday or Saturday next. Send him (Mr Bowie), also the teacher, notice of the meeting, that they may be prepared with books, papers, and other evidence. — Yours, etc., A. Calder, Chairman School Committee. -Clutha Leader, 5/4/1889.
LOVELLS FLAT SCHOOL.
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir, — As I am blamed by one of the parties in the school committee dispute for writing under the title "our own correspondent," will you be good enough to say whether I had anything to do with said article. — I am, &c., W. Fraser. Lovells Flat, February 10, 1889.
[Note, — Mr Fraser was not "our own correspondent" referred to, and we are not aware that he had anything whatever to do with the matter.— Ed. C.L.]
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir, — In your issue of the 5th inst., re Lovells Flat School Committee correspondence by Mr Nelson I am reported as having said there was no law whereby a man could sit and be both judge and jury in a case. The writer knows this is only a fungus production of his own fertile brain. What I did say was, that the chairman could not show either by law or rule that he as principal witness could give evidence against the accused and at the same time sit in judgment over him. So if your own correspondent of the previous week was not present at the meeting he was not far away for he hit the mark well; in short he made a bull's eye, which I think your numerous readers will see. In particular he was right as to Mr Wilson trying to draw the accused out, for by the report furnished by the secretary, he must have practised the drawing process to the best of his ability. And I think it must be admitted that the reported statements of the chairman show clearly that he was the principal witness against the accused (Mr Bowie). Therefore Mr Hewitson and myself were perfectly justified in the stand we took, seeing the chairman would do an injustice to his best neighbour (of 16 years standing, according to his — the chairman's— own acknowledgment), rather than vacate the chair and allow the accused and accuser to select a disinterested person to act as arbitrater in their little dispute. And, sir, when a person wishes to convey a wrong impression to the public how easy it is for him to do so by witholding part of the truth, the essence of the indictment, as contained in the secretary's letter to Mr Bowie of March 12, which reads not as published but as follows: — "The teacher and committee will afford you every opportunity and all the information at their disposal to enable you to defend yourself (see the enclosed original letter received by Mr Bowie). Now, sir, if a person is not accused of anything what has he to defend himself against? How convenient it is to leave out those words and thereby try to throw dust into the eyes of the public! The secretary objects to his name being coupled with the teacher's in the distribution of prizes. Why, sir, he was specially selected by the committee, and always has been, to go with the teacher and buy the prizes and see them properly distributed. Mr Nelson also says he challenged Mr Bowie to prove before the committee and the householders present that he acted unfairly in the recent distribution of prizes. As there were four of the committee and the teacher, against Mr Bowie and the other three committee, Mr Nelson knew he was quite safe on that point, no one else being present at the time. But if Mr Nelson wishes to remove the stigma that one of the members told him straight to his face at the last meeting, had been hanging over his head for the last 10 years and will issue the same challenge — viz. acting unfairly either by word or deed at the recent distribution of prizes, either with or without the teacher: if he will agree to a chairman being chosen from among the householders present at the annual election on the 23rd inst.; will accept a verdict by show of hands at the same time and place; without prevarication; and will stake the sum of Ll, to be given to Mrs Bowie, the widow, if the verdict is against him — the; acceptor to do the same, and the editor of the Leader to be stake-holder — if those conditions suit Mr Nelson, he can be accommodated at once by your humble servant,
James Bennett. Lovells Flat, April 9, 1889.
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir, — I do not wish to trench on any matter that might be used in any dispute that may be fermenting between your Lovells Flat correspondent and the writer of the long communication on school matters in your last issue, but when so much that is disagreeable has been made public, I wish to make sure that another matter is brought to light prior to the elections. It is this, to put it briefly and mildly, the present school committee is split into two parties, which although they
"Argued the thing at breakfast And argued the thing at tea,
The more they argued the question The more they don't agree."
No harm may have been done so far, but if the present personnel of the committee is permitted to remain unchanged for the incoming year, this party feeling, if that is the right expression to describe this particular "split in the cabinet," may intensify so as to militate against the good of the school interests. Curiously enough, each individual member of the present committee is allowed to be the right man in the right place, but combined I repeat they are "eyes and nose," and neither will give in that the spectacles belong to the other. To remedy this, I would suggest that the householders elect four of the present committee, two from each side, then sweeten the lot by the election of three new men.
I need not apologise for any boldness in bringing this matter up, for there is a strong feeling in the district that, something of the sort, should be done. Hoping our householders will not forget it at the right time,
— I am, &c , H. J. Pink. Lovells Flat, April 10, 1889. -Clutha Leader, 12/4/1889.
LOVELLS FLAT.
A LIVELY MEETING.
The-annual meeting of householders in the above district was held in the schoolhouse on Tuesday evening. As the meeting was expected to be of a lively nature there was a large attendance. Mr Dunlop, who was voted to the chair, read the annual report, which was as follows: —
"Your committee have to report that the balance left from year 1888 amounted to L9 8s 5d: the receipts were L20 from Education Board for ordinary incidental expenses, and L4 for the erection of a new chimney; the sum of Ll3 was raised for prizes, and rents, L1 7s 6d; the total being L47 15s l1d. The expenditure was: Cleaning school, Lll 4s 6d; fuel, L2 15s; repairs to fences, etc, L6 16s; new chimney, Ll0 8s 6d; prizes, Lll 11s 10d; and miscellaneous, LI 7s l1d; leaving a balance L3 11s l1d on 1st January, 1889.
"The only new works done during the past year was the erection of a chimney for the infant department, and for which the Education Board granted L 4.
"The school passed a good examination at the last inspection, the percentages for extra subjects being very high, and the report on the teaching staff shows that they are capable of and doing good work in the school.
"Mrs Robertson resigned the appointment of sewing mistress in November last. The committee recommended Miss Nelson for the.-appointment, but the Education Board replied, that it was not desirable that the appointment of sewing mistress and pupilteacher should be in one person, and the committee then recommended Miss Carruthers, of Fairfax, for the appointment. The board has appointed her and she has commenced her duties.
"With reference to the late distribution of prizes some unpleasantness has arisen through Mr Charles Bowie charging the teacher and the secretary with partiality in awarding the prizes. Mr Bowie was asked to prove his charges, and he met the committee for that purpose, but when called upon he refused to bring any proof in support of his accusations or make any statement on the matter, and when pressed to prove the charges he had made to three members of committee and the teacher, he denied everything.
"Your committee have come to the conclusion that from Mr Bowie's action before it at the meeting above referred to, that his charges against the teacher and secretary are utterly without foundation.
"Mr Fraser moved, and Mr Currie seconded — "That the report be adopted."
Mr Bowie said he had an explanation to make in regard to that portion of the report in which his name was mentioned. Some time ago he accidently met the chairman (Mr Calder), and commenced conversing with him with reference to the appointment of sewing mistress. During the conversation that ensued he informed Mr Calder that he considered his boy was entitled to the dux prize, as he had beaten the girl Nelson, who received the prize, at the inspector's examination. He told this to Mr Calder in confidence, but that gentleman afterwards went to the teacher and informed him of the matter. Mr Calder said that the report with regard to the dux prize was current throughout the district before Mr Bowie mentioned it to him. When the charge of partiality was brought against the teacher, he thought it was his duty as chairman to see the matter properly sifted. — (Applause. )
Mr Robertson (the teacher) explained that the prizes were awarded from his own marks and not the inspector's. There had evidently been a mistake made in the matter. The inspectors only marked for arithmetic. In that subject Mr Bowie's boy was highest. The Chairman said his opinion was that there was very little in the whole affair. — (Hear, hear.) There had evidently been mistakes made on both sides, and he considered the best course to pursue was to proceed with the election of the committee. — (Loud applause.)
Mr Fraser endorsed the chairman's remarks.
Mr Bowie said he was sorry that his remarks had been made so much of, as the row had only caused a large amount of ill-feeling throughout the district.
Mr R. Hewitson considered that Mr Calder had betrayed confidence by repeating to the teacher the private conversation he had with Mr Bowie.
Mr Calder: I repeat the statement made by me previously to-night — viz., that the report was current before Mr Bowie spoke to me. Even if it had not been current it was my duty as chairman to report to the teacher that he was accused of partially in distributing the prizes. — (Great uproar.)
Several householders rose to speak, but were ruled out of order by the chairman, who urged them to proceed with the election.
Mr Calder attempted to address the meeting, but his remarks were drowned by the uproar.
Mr Nelson said that before the election was proceeded with he would like to make a few remarks. He had been accused of acting in league with the teacher for several years in order to secure a number of prizes for his own family. As Mr Strack was included in the charge he thought it only fair that the householders should hear the letter that that gentleman had sent him.
The Chairman read the letter, which was sworn before a J. P. It stated that during the time the writer was in the school he alone had awarded the prizes according to merit. He had never been influenced by Mr Nelson or anyone else, but had decided according to the marks.
Mr Hewitson: That letter proves nothing. Mr S track was guilty of partiality while teacher, and all the letters in the kingdom would not make me think otherwise.
Mr Fraser thought they were only losing time. They should proceed with the emotion. — (Applause. ) He considered that the teacher was not to blame in the matter. If he had given more than one prize to the dux girl it was the committee's fault. They should have advised him to the contrary.
After further discussion Mr Nelson nominated Messrs Dunlop, Calder, Bryce, Nelson, and Wilson as members of the committee.
Mr Bennett contended that as Mr Nelson's house was not within the school district he was not entitled to vote and could not sit upon the committee. He proceeded in lawyer-like style to prove his assertions by producing maps of the district, educational acts, and other documentary evidence. He occupied the attention of the meeting for considerably over an hour endeavouring to convince the householders that Messrs Nelson and Wilson belonged to the Hillend and not the Lovells Flat school district.
Mr Wilson thought they should allow the election of members to proceed. In the event of Mr Nslson and himself being elected those who objected could appeal to the higher court, the Education Board. It was not for the householders to decide who should vote.
Mr Calder said he had authority for stating that if Messrs Nelson and Wilson were elected the Education Board would uphold the election.
Mr Hewitson: Show us your authority. — (Laughter.)
A householder suggested that someone else should nominate the above gentlemen, seeing that they would not allow Mr Nelsou to act.
Mr Calder then nominated Messrs Nelson, Wilson, Dunlop, Bryce, and Calder.
Mr Nelson proceeded to write the names on the blackboard, when Mr Bennett, becoming excited, rubbed out the names of the objectionable parties.
A great uproar ensued, several preparing to leave the room.
Mr Calder moved that the meeting adjourn.
Order being restored, another attempt was made to write the names on the board but without success, Mr R. Hewitson acting this time as effacer.
At this stage of the proceedings Mr Calder left the room remarking as he did so that he would protest against the election on the ground that they were not allowed to vote.
Messrs Calder, Bryce, Nelson, and Wilson having retired from the contest, the election was proceeded with and resulted as follows: —
The first seven were declared duly elected.
Mr Fraser said he would protest against the election on the ground that others than householders had voted.
The meeting then terminated, having lasted two hours 35 minutes.
Voters/Votes.
Dunlop .... 17 — 43
Hewitson ... 15 — 23
Bowie ... 13 — 20
Bennett ... 12 — 14
Butcher ... 11 — 14
Elliot ... 10 — 11
Robson ... 9 — 11
Walsh ... 4 — 4 -Clutha Leader, 26/4/1889.
AUCTIONEERS' COMMISSION.
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir, — I see by your yesterday's issue that my letter was too strongly worded for your columns, and that you believe that the transaction is in accordance with the rules of the business as conducted all over the Colony. I may say I have travelled Otago over many times during the last 30 years, always doing some little business, but never met with such a transaction before, neither have I met with anyone that has. Therefore I think you will see the necessity of making it public, and I trust you will be pleased to publish my letter, rejecting the strong words you object to; but put the whole of the facts plainly before the public, so that those who run may read.
— I am, &c., James Bennett. Lovells Flat, September 28th, 1889.
The following is the letter referred to, and from which we have expunged some rather strongly-worded expressions of opinion on the part of the writer: —
TO THE" EDITOR. Sir, — On the 8th of last month (August) two men were riding past my place. One of them, Mr J. A. Duthie, of Milton, came to me at the plough and asked if I had any colts for sale. I said, "I have one here I will sell." He then called his companion, and introduced him to me as being Mr James Smith, junr., of Greenfield. Having known his father (a gentleman I have held in the highest esteem for over 30 years), I unhesitatingly sold my colt to him for Ll4 10s. As soon as I gave him delivery of the colt, Mr Duthie said, "I will pay you in a few days," which made me think he was acting as agent for Mr Smith. But in about a week after I received a cheque from Mr Duthie for L13 15s 6d, with an account charging me 5 per cent, commission, not only on the L13 15s 6d, but also on the 14s 6d he has kept off, not for selling my colt, but for introducing the buyer to the seller. My colt was not in his hands for sale, neither has Mr Duthie ever acted as my agent. I wrote Mr Smith on the subject, and in his reply he states he considers Mr Duthie is justified in charging me as he did, and if I am not satisfied I may go to court for the balance (14s 6d).
— I am, &c, James Bennett. Lovells Flat, 21st September, 1889. -Clutha Leader, 4/10/1889.
The next disruption in the otherwise placid (I assume) life of the Lovells Flat School concerned drainpipes. A road worker for the County Council asked if he could temporarily store some drainpipes on the grounds of the teacher's house. The teacher agreed and was given a couple of loads of firewood in return, the product of bridge repairs. The Committee objected to the presence of the pipes and there was some discussion, private and public, as to whether the teacher had to right to allow the pipes to be stored in his back yard.
THE LOVELLS FLAT SCHOOL TROUBLE.
The following verses were blown the other day into the Lovells Flat school ground, and the party who found them thought it would be a thousand pities if they failed to meet the eye of the general public. He also considered that when the history of the district is written a hundred years or so hence, they would form valuable material for the historian: —
I lift my pen some lines to write About a certain prolonged fight,
Urged by au interfering wight Called Bennett.
From first to last more than a year He's kept the country side in fear.
Where e're he goes the people hear Committee!
Like all row makers, he has friends Who work with him to gain their ends.
One of them to boasting tends — That's Hewitson.
Supported by our worthy wight In this mixed up incongruous fight,
There is another man of might — That's Bowie.
I've yet another man to name, Who's gained no small amount of fame,
And who is led just by the mane — That's Lowery.
For many months this noble few Tried with all the skill they knew
To make the people see their view Of timber!
The cause they pledded ran as thus — "What awful blame must follow us
If children playing near the cuss Are injured."
At last, to please their narrow minds, Which each unto the other binds,
To move the nuisance thus inclines The Council.
Their hands, now idle from the fight, Fossick out with all their might
Something to their eyes not right To remedy.
And lying snug behind the fence Enclosing the school residence They drop on something to commonce The row.
Placed safely there out of the road Of people passing with a load
Lay sweetly slumbering like a toad Drain pipes!
The sight of these pipes raised their ire, And flamed their prying eyes with fire.
They promised under threats most dire To shift them.
A complaint was lodged with the Board, And they were by that body floored;
By it their letter was ignored, And sat on.
But not content with this alone, The Council also must have one.
"Unworthy of notice " — oh! what fun — Enraged them.
As Secretary B. called a meeting, Cock sure of this their task completing;
But, oh, dear oh! he got a beating That awful night.
A vote of censure passed on him Makes him o'erflow his very brim,
And, worst of all, B. in the fling Forsakes him.
Enraged at first, now ten times worse, B. I believe from his own purse
Hires a man to shift the curse On to the road.
Bereft of their deceitful friend, The dauntless trio at their wits' end
Do not see that they are penned, And beaten.
But not content with all that's done, And wishing to have some more fun,
B., like a swift shot from a gun, Runs to the papers.
In them he pleads a sickly cause, Based on what he knows of laws,
And he falls in the lion's jaws, And perishes.
For Lovells Flat can furnish men Who have great power with the pen;
They beard the fellow in his den, And beat him.
He makes another feeble struggle, Which is just burst up like a bubble;
His recompense for all his trouble Is hatred.
This is the sad end of a band Who tried to take the upper hand,
And may it in memoriam stand Of its sad fate. -Bruce Herald, 26/8/1890.
The end of year concert and distribution of prizes for 1890 went without incident. But James Bennett was not done with the Committee.
THE LOVELLS FLAT SCHOOL COMMITTEE TROUBLE.
To the Editor.
Sir, — Will you be good enough to find room for the attached correspondence between the auditor of the Education Board and the Secretary of the Lovells Flat School Committee.
— I am, &c, Wm, Fraser.
From the Secretary of the Education Board of Otago to Mr Wm. Fraser, Lovells Flat. Dunedin, 4th May, 1891.
Sir,— Referring to yours of date 2nd instant, requesting information as to why the certified statement of the accounts of the Lovells Flat School Committee for the period ending 31st March had not been produced by the clerk (Mr Bennett) at the annual meeting of householders, I have the honor to forward herewith a copy of correspondence which has passed between Mr Bennett and the Auditor, from which you will see that the delay in the certification of the accounts has been occasioned by Mr Bennett having failed to produce to the Auditor satisfactory evidence of the actual existence of a balance of £7 16s shown by the books to be at date of audit in the hands of the treasurer to the committee.
P, G. Pryde, Secretary.
__________
Education Office, Dunedin, April 18, 1891
Mr James Bennett, Clerk School Committee, Lovells Fiat.
Sir, — In auditing the accounts of the Lovells Flat School Committee, I find that there is a cash balance in your hands of £10 6s.
So soon as you forward me evidence of having lodged the amount in the Bank to the Committee's credit I shall be prepared to sign the balance-sheet as correct.
S. M Parks, Auditor.
__________
Lovells Flat, April 22, 1891. The Auditor, Education Board.
Sir,— I have just received yours of the 18th inst, intimating that as soon as I send evidence of having paid into the bank £10 6s you are prepared to sign the balancesheet as correct. If our reading of the Act is the correct one we find section 81 reads: "The provisions of section 41 shall apply to the school funds in the hands of the Committee, and shall be applied accordingly." Section 41 reads: — "All monies received by or belonging to the Committee shall be paid into the bank as the Committee from time to time appoints;" but as this Committee did not appoint any bank is the reason for the money being in hand; while section 82 reads: "All monies in hand (if any) shall be paid over by such Committee to its successors," which we are prepared to do at any moment. You will find that the last quarter's salary paid to the janitor, Mrs Bowie, was paid in cash, not by cheque, so that there is that amount less in hand. Trusting the above will be a satisfactory explanation
— Yours, etc., James Bennett, Clark, School Committee.
__________
Education Office, Dunedin, April 23, 1891.
Mr James Bennett, Clerk School Committee, Lovells Flat.
Sir, — As auditor of school committees' accounts I find your Committee have operated on an account in the Bank of New Zealand, Milton, called, the "Lovells Flat School Committee account," and in thus acting I take it that your Committee tacitly agreed to carry on the banking business of your predecessors in office, though they might not appoint the Bank of New Zealand the Committee's bankers by actual resolution. The Education Board has received no notification from you that your Committee had transferred their account to another bank. If you consider it absolutely necessary for every committee on taking office to appoint by actual resolution their bankers for the year, it clearly was a grave omission on the part of your Committee, not to attend to this matter.
I accept your statement that £7 16s was the cash balance at end of March. It has always been your custom to pay Mrs Bowie by cheque, and I presumed you had so paid her in March, and that this cheque was therefore outstanding. When forwarding your accounts you gave no information as to cash in hand.
My object is to obtain proof of the actual existence of this cash balance. The simplest way of accomplishing this is, as I intimated to you, the payment of the amount into the bank and the production of the bank's receipt.
It is unavoidable that cash balances will occasionally occur; but it is not in accordance with good business rule that cash should be retained in hand for nearly three months, as has been done in your case, especially when there is a banking account accessible.
Please pay the amount into the bank at once, so that the certified accounts may be produced by you at the annual meeting.
— I am, etc., S. M. Park, Auditor. -Bruce Herald, 15/5/1891.
THE LOVELLS FLAT SCHOOL COMMITTEE TROUBLE.
TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — I see by your Friday's issue that you have published at the request of Mr Wm. Fraser part only of the correspondence that has passed between the Auditor of the Education Board and myself, relating to part of the funds of the late School Committee, evidently intending to cast a stigma not only upon my character but also on that of the chairman of that body, Mr Charles Bowie, who signed the balancesheet as correct. I challenge Mesers Fraser, Pryde, Park & Co. to show that it is not. I therefore beg you will grant me space in your columns to reply.
First, Mr Editor, I must tax your memory, as you were present at the annual meeting of householders last year, and I have no doubt you will remember that before leaving the room on that occasion Mr Fraser came to the table with all the pomposity and bombast of an eastern nabob, in the presence of Mr Dunlop and yourself with this remark to me, "I'm elected under great pressure to keep you right." At the first meeting of committee, held on the 2nd May 1890, Mr Fraser stated he had a motive for four members being elected as a works committee, himself included, but as my name was excluded from that number, I think your numerous readers will easily see his motive: that I was to be sat upon. He also said these words, "I am determined to see that everything is carried on in a proper manner, and that I will not allow this secretary to rule the committee as Mr Nelson has done." My fellow members will vouch for this statement. Now, Sir, if there is anything wrong (which I deny there is) is the servant or his lord and master to blame?
I must now draw your attention to Mr Pryde's statement. He says the delay in the certification of the accounts has been occasioned by Mr Bennett having failed to produce to the Auditor satisfactory evidence of the actual existence of £7 16s, whilst the Auditor states in his letter dated 18th April he finds there is a cash balance in my hands of £10 6s, and as soon as I forward him evidence (not of the actual existence of the money as stated by Mr Pryde) but of having paid it into the Bank, he is prepared to sign the balance-sheet as being correct (which I think shows the accounts are not far wrong). But he does not say what section of the Act makes it compulsory to send the Bank's receipt to the Auditor. In my reply, dated 22nd April, I wrote — "Section 41 reads, 'All moneys received by or belonging to the committee shall be paid into such Bank as the committee from time to time appoints.'" But as this committee did not appoint any Bank, how does that stand for Mr Fraser with his boasted determination. to see everything carried on in the proper manner, elected as he states under great pressure to keep me right? Is the servant to blame when his lord handed over to him the sum of £4 5s, the proceeds of the concert, and did not instruct him when to pay it in, or even appoint a Bank to pay it into? You see section 82 reads — "All moneys in hand (if any) shall be paid (not into a Bank but) over by such committee to its successors," which has been done in this instance, and Mr S. M. Park holds the receipt for the sum of £7 16s, signed by two members of the newly-elected committee, Messrs Fraser, Pryde, Park & Co. did not tell you that did they?
I must now stop, and trust you will allow me space in another issue to continue, as I have not the time to write to the Press that Messrs Fraser, Pryde & Co. have.
— I am, &c., James Bennett, Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer to the newly-elected School Committee.
Lovells Flat, 16th May, 1891. -Bruce Herald, 19/5/1891.
Matters around Bennett's retention of a certain sum seem to have come to a head at the meeting to elect the new Committee in June 1891.
LOVELLS FLAT SCHOOL COMMITTEE.
A meeting of householders was held in the schoolhouse, Lovells Flat, on Saturday evening, for the purpose of electing a school committee for the ensuing year. There was a very large attendance, and Constable King, from Milton, was present in case his services were required. Mr 0. Bowie, chairman of late committee, presided.
The clerk read the minutes of a late meeting of committee, at which a motion, "That the treasurer, Mr Bennett, pay all moneys in hand into the Bank and send in a certificate to the auditor so that the accounts may be prepared for the meeting of householders," was not carried owing to the Chairman leaving the chair.
The Chairman said he left the chair because no order was kept, and a motion that the Treasurer be authorised to take action to recover the accounts from the auditor shared the same fate.
The Chairman read a letter from the Board, stating that the first election had been declared null and void, and that the Board had fixed the 13th June for a new election, and that the first business was the election of a Chairman for that meeting.
Mr Calder moved, and Mr Bryce seconded, "That Mr John Adam take the chair."
Mr R. Hewitson — "I object to Mr Adam taking the chair, he is not in the district."
Mr Adam declined to act, Mr Bennett moved, "That Mr Wm. Hewitson take the chair."
Mr Fraser moved, "That Mr Wm. Todd take the chair."
On a show of hands, Mr Hewitson was elected, and took the chair.
The Chairman asked for the report of the retiring committee.
Mr Bennett, in a long, rambling statement, said that the reason they had no balancesheet was the fault of the auditor, and the auditor had no right to write such letters as he had done, as he had kept the accounts according to the Act, and according to a circular from the Board, which he read. He also quoted largely from the Education Act on the subject, and said he intended to call the auditor to account for what he had done in this matter.
Mr Fraser asked the Chairman to read sections 80 and 81 in conjunction with section 41, and asked if Mr Bennett had complied with the provisions of section 41 in paying all moneys into the Bank.
The Chairman said Mr Bennett was right. The regulation issued by the Board overrode the Act, and Mr Bennett's interpretation was correct, and he would rule accordingly. His opinion was that the Act provided that all moneys in the Bank should be drawn out at the end of the year, and paid over to the new committee in hard cash.
" Oh! Oh." and "question."
Mr Bennett said a report had been circulated in the district that he had embezzled the funds, but he had done nothing that was not according to the Act. He then read a letter he had sent to the committee's banker, and a reply, stating that the committee had a credit balance at the Bank of £5 odd, and the law was that he ought to have drawn it all out of the Bank and paid it to his successor in the coin of the realm.
The Chairman again asked if there was any report from the retiring committee.
Mr Bennett again made a long statement about the auditor refusing to return his accounts, and handed Mr Bowie a paper, asking him if the figures on it were correct, as it was a copy of the sheet sent to the auditor.
Mr Bowie — "I cannot say it is correct."
Mr E. Hewitson — "It is what you signed."
Mr Bowie — "I cannot say what I signed."
Mr Bennett — "It was copied from the books," and commenced to read a report.
Mr Fraser said the report being read was not from the committee.
Mr R. Hewitson — "It is a report."
Mr Fraser — "It is not a report from the committee, and I protest against it being read as the committee's report."
Mr Fraser then handed to the Chairman a written protest, which the Chairman ignored.
Mr Bowie — "There is no report from the retiring committee."
Mr Dunlop — "I move that the meeting adjourn, as there is no report from the committee, nor a balance-sheet certified to by the auditor."
Mr Bennett — "The balance-sheet in my hand is correct."
Mr Fraser — "I still object to these papers being read. They are only Mr Bennett's."
Mr R. Hewitson — "Never mind Fraser's objection. Read the report."
The Chairman then allowed Mr Bennett to read a report of his own, which elicited roars of laughter.
Mr R. Hewitson moved the adoption of the report.
Mr Bennett — "I second that."
Mr Fraser moved: "That the report read be not adopted, as it is not the committee's report."
Mr Bryce seconded, and stated as a member of the old committee that it was not their report.
Mr R. Hewitson — "Put the motion to the meeting."
Mr Fraser — "The Chairman has no right to put that report to the meeting; it is only a report from Mr Bennett, and not from the committee, and the Chairman has no right to allow Mr Bennett such an opportunity of abusing and misrepresenting every person opposed to his actions in connection with the school."
Mr H. Hewitson — "The auditor is keeping back the books for some purpose of his own."
Mr Dunlop hoped that Commissioners would be appointed, as it was quite clear that no good could be arrived at in the midst of such party feeling in the district.
Mr R. Hewitson — "Mr Dunlop is a party man himself, and he told a parcel of lies to the Board in connection with the petition sent in to upset the last election."
Mr Lowery — "Who burnt the papers?
Several voices — "Mr Bennett."
Mr Dunlop said that in some conversation with Mr Clark, a member of the Board, he said he was not sure who put the papers in the fire, "but I know they were put in the fire," and that the petition ought to be decided on general grounds and not on any particular point.
Mr Dunlop added, "And I swear that I told the truth in every particular as far as I knew then."
Mr R. Hewitson — "Mr Dunlop ought to be drummed out of the district for his conduct." — (Dissent).
Mr Shannon said that notwithstanding anything that Mr Hewitson and Mr Bennett may say to the contrary, Mr Bennett was the cause of the papers being burnt, and he restrained every person who tried to save them. The motion for the adjournment and adoption of the report was put to meeting, and the former was lost and the latter carried on a show of hands.
The Chairman said he would now take nominations for the election of a new committee, and asked Mr Buchanan to act as scrutineer.
Mr Bennett nominated R. Hewitson, G. Elliott, and A. Lowery.
Mr R. Hewitson nominated Mr Bennett, who thanked Mr Hewitson for his nomination in a long speech, in which a variety of subjects were commented upon. A lull then took place in the proceedings, no other person being nominated.
Mr Bennett then rose and nominated Messrs Robson, Fraser, Bryce, Calder, Butcher, Nelson, and a dozen other persons in the room, who all declined his nomination. He then tried to nominate some who were not present, but was overruled.
After some consultation between the Bennett and Hewitson party and their supporters, Mr Rush and Mr Robson, (who was re-nominated) and Mr A. Lowery consented to stand, which made seven. The Chairman said — " If there are do more nominations I will declare those nominated elected."
Mr Calder — "I have some names to propose. I nominate Mr Fraser for election."
The Chairman — "I decline to receive Mr Fraser's nomination; he was nominated before and declined."
Mr Fraser — "I only declined because I refused to be nominated by Mr Bennett. I now consent to Mr Calder's nomination."
The Chairman — "I still refuse to take your name."
Mr Calder — "I will lodge a protest with the Board if you refuse to accept Mr Fraser's nomination."
The Chairman — "I don't care; that is my ruling."
Mr Fraser — "I nominate Mr Bryce for election."
The Chairman — "I refuse to accept Mr Bryce's nomination on the same grounds as Mr Fraser's."
Mr Bryce — "I consent to Mr Fraser's nomination. I never asked Mr Bennett to nominate me."
The Chairman — "I don't care; you were nominated and refused, and I will not take it now."
Mr Fraser — "It is no use our proceeding further in the face of such ruling, as Mr Bennet has nominated every one in the room. I will appeal to the Board."
The Chairman — "I declare the seven names on the black board duly elected."
A vote of thanks to the Chairman closed the meeting.
The new Committee met after the meeting, and elected Mr R, Hewitson Chairman, and Mr Bennett, Clerk and Treasurer. -Bruce Herald, 16/6/1891.
OUR DUNEDIN LETTER.
[FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.]
The influenza epidemic, which is now so prevalent in Australia, has already reached our shores, but it is to be devoutly hoped that it will not prove so disastrous to our people as it did to those in the fair isle across the Tasman Sea. Several persons of my acquaintance are at present prostrated with the trouble, while others are complaining of drowsiness and pains all over — two .ailments which appear to be the unmistakable forerunners of the malady. As an instance of the contagious nature of the illness, I may mention a fact, that came under my notice last week. A young man named Campbell, who at one time resided in Mornington, died in Melbourne from influenza, and his body was brought over to Dunedin for interment. Two old acquaintances of the family, Mr and Mrs Carroll, of Mornington, went to view it, and a few days later both were down with the disease. Two men who were in Mr Carroll's employ were also attacked with the same complaint, and the whole four are at present under the doctor's care.
It is satisfactory to learn that the difficulty that existed for several months between the Education Board and the Lovells Flat School Committee is now at an end. Mr Bennett and Mr Rush, two members of the committee, waited on the board at its last meeting, and attempted to lay before them their grievance in connection with the school accounts, but the board declined to go into the matter with them and simply heard what they had to say, and then passed a resolution to the effect that the action of the board in refusing to pay the committee's quarterly allowance was quite justified on account of the attitude of the committee. The chairman, (Mr. Macgregor) made a "full, clear, and concise statement of the matter, and pointed out that the whole difficulty had arisen through the stubbornness of Mr Bennett and his friends in. their unwillingness to submit receipts for their expenditure of the balance in hand on the 31st March last". After the board meeting had concluded, Mr Bennett and Mr Rush, waited upon the secretary (Mr Pryde) by appointment, and I understand that Mr Bennett's false position was pointed out to him in a very few minutes, and that he saw plainly that it would be useless to persist in the course he had previously taken. I learn also that he undertook to forward the necessary receipts by the following day's mail, the secretary at the same time promising to pay the committee's allowance as soon as ever the accounts were in order. Mr Bennett is of opinion that the board treated him all through very cavalierly, and no doubt they did; but on the other hand it must be said that had the committee approached the board in a conciliatory spirit at the first the vexed question might have been settled within a month after it cropped up. -Clutha Leader, 23/10/1891.
THE LOVELLS FLAT SCHOOL DISPUTE.
Our Dunedin correspondent writes as under: — I notice that the dispute between the Otago Education Board and the Lovells Flat School Committee has not yet been settled, and is, in fact, as far from being settled as it ever was. This being so I have made some inquiries concerning the matter as it now stands, and I learn that on the 30th of September Mr H. M. Park, the board's auditor, wrote to Mr Bennett, the clerk of the committee, as follows: —
The secretary to the board has handed me your letter of date 26th inst. As I am desirous that nothing shall be wanting on my part to expedite the completion of the audit of the Lovells Flat School accounts, and as you seem to have some scruples about trusting the receipts into my hands, I have now to propose that, if you are likely to be in Dunedin soon, you bring the receipts to me for my inspection. Thus they need not be for a moment out of your keeping. Or, if this plan be not feasible, that you deliver the required receipts into the custody of some person possessing your complete confidence, who shall present them to me at this office, and out of whose charge they shall not go.
If you do not see your way to agree to either of these proposals, I really am at a loss to know what more I can do to meet your views without absolutely withdrawing from the position I have taken up from the first — a course which is entirely out of the question, and utterly beyond my power.
Matters stood at this stage until the 15th October, when Mr Bennett and Mr Rush, both members of the school committee, waited on the Education Beard, with the result that I fully stated in my letter to the Leader last week. On the same day, and in consequence of the interview these two gentlemen had with the secretary of the board, Mr Pryde wrote to Mr Bennett as under: —
In order to bring the matter of the audit of school accounts to a satisfactory conclusion, I have to ask you to submit to the auditor, or to forward to me for his inspection, original receipts for the sum of L2 17s 4d, the cash balance handed over to you by your predecessors in office, and which sum you say has now been expended..
If these receipts are found by the auditor to be in order (as I have no doubt they will be), I engage to post them back to you immediately after he has satisfied himself of their correctness.
The allowance will be paid into the bank as soon as the auditor signs the balance sheets.
Things had gone well so far, and Mr Bennett had even promised to send in on the Friday (the 16th) the receipts that were required; but after leaving Mr Pryde's office he appears to have got his back up again, with the result that up to the present, (the 27th) he has not further communicated with the board's officials as he undertook to do. The auditor, it should be understood, does not wish to retain the receipts which Mr Bennett appears to value so highly; he simply desires to see that they are in existence. If he certifies to the accounts being correct without examining these receipts he does an illegal act, and he is too cute a man to fall into that error, and have the auditor-general calling on him to make good the deficiency.
And what will be the upshot if Mr Bennett persists in his present course, and the people of the district support him? Why, the board will justly close the school, and dismiss the teachers, and it appears that this result is being surely brought about. What else can be done, since the attitude taken up by the board and its officials is the only constitutional one?
It appears to me that Mr Bennett should be only too glad to have the matter settled at once. The whole trouble originated from the fact that Mr Bennett kept in his possession the sum of Ll0 odd for three or four months, when he should have paid it into the bank, during which time he was drawing out cheques on the bank to pay the committee's current expenses. If an action of this nature was proved against any public officer having control of public funds, it would speedily terminate in the dismissal of that officer, and very properly so. -Clutha Leader, 30/10/1891.
THE LOVELLS FLAT SCHOOL DISPUTE.
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir, — I beg you, will grant me space in your valuable columns to reply to some of the remarks, and deny two or three of the false statements, contained in the letter of your Dunedin correspondent anent the above subject. I would not have replied to his effusions he had only kept to the truth; but to say that I promised to send the receipts on the 16th, or any other time, is a misstatement, as my colleague on the deputation (Mr Rush) will bear me out. Every member of the committee object to those receipts being sent; for we contend the auditor has no more right to them than the man in the street until after the 31st March next, the end of the financial year. The only promise made was that whatever proposals (if any) made by Mr Pryde would be presented to the committee on our return, provided such were put on paper, as we positively refused to take his word for one single sentence. The auditor says I seem to have scruples about trusting those receipts in his hands; I contend he has no right to them as above stated. Your correspondent says if I persist in the present course the board will dismiss the teachers and close the school, as the position taken up by the board and its officials is the only constitutional one. I challenge the board and its officials to show one sentence of the Act, or the regulations to audit, to justify the position they say is the only constitutional one, which any schoolboy knows the board cannot discharge or engage a teacher without first consulting the committee. He says, again, I kept in my possession the sum of L10 for three or four months which should have been paid into a bank. This is also false. I again challenge every member of the board, including the chairman, who is a lawyer, to show that it is compulsory for a committee to appoint a bank at all. The bank-book was in the hands of the auditor at the time that letter was written (the 27th), which shows the very reverse of his statement that cheques were drawn on the bank to pay the committee's current expenses, while there was cash in hand, thus again showing that also is untrue. It is dreadful to think how the board's officers will resort to falsehood to try to make their case appear good, when they know they have taken up an illegal attitude. We consider this the most wanton act of injustice ever inflicted upon a school committee (and it will not soon be forgotten), to stop the funds due to this school to gratify the board's officials; and rely upon two sections (81. and 41) of the Act, which are practically inoperative, absolutely without foundation. It is easily known who your Dunedin correspondent is, for any one can see he has access to the board's letter-book, while has has made use of an expression in his letter which fell direct from Mr Pryde's lips to me in his own office.
— I am &c., James Bennett. Lovells Flat, November 7, 1891. -Clutha Leader, 13/11/1891.
Finally...finally...the whole matter was laid before a judge in the Court in Milton.
R. M. Court, Milton.
WEDNESDAY, 10th AUGUST, 1892
(Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.)
LOVELLS FLAT SCHOOL COMMITTEE V. JAMES BENNETT.
Claim, £10, damages for the detention of certain documents in lieu of their return.
Mr Sim, instructed by the Education Board, appeared for the plaintiffs; defendant conducted his own case.
In opening the case, Mr Sim said that Mr Bennett was formerly a member of the school committee for several years, but at the last election (counsel did not know whether he stood or not) at any rate he was not elected. After the last election the new committee took office on the 27th of last April, and it was then Mr Bennett's duty, as clerk and treasurer of the old committee, to hand over to the new committee all books and papers relating to the affairs of the school committee and any balance of money in hand. Counsel then quoted section 82 of the Education Act, as providing among other things that any balance in hand should be handed over by the old committee to its successors. For the year ended March 31, 1891, Mr Bennett could not get his accounts audited by the Board because he failed to show the balance in hand of £7 16s. Then the Education Board refused to pay any more money to the credit of the committee until this balance was accounted for by documents. Three months afterwards Mr Bennett produced the vouchers showing the expenditure of this balance, which the auditor certified as correct. But he subsequently refused to produce the vouchers for the period from April 1 to June 13, 1891; also the bank book, the cash book for the year ended March 31, 1891. He read copies of letters forwarded to Mr Bennett asking for the production of the documents. Why Mr Bennett should keep the documents he did not know, unless it was to give trouble to the Education Beard or to the present committee; because he had had a difference with the Board about the audit for the year ending March 31, 1890, and had to give in in the end. The vouchers for the period April 1 to June 13 were required for the purpose of auditing the balance-sheet for the year ending March 31, 1892. Section 82 of the Act said that all moneys had to be handed over to the new committee; it did not say "hand over all books"; but it was absurd to contend, as he understood Mr Bennett would, that the outgoing secretary was entitled to keep in his possession books, papers, &c, purchased with public money. He understood that Mr Bennett had made a tender of the books to the clerk of the Court after the summons was issued.
Samuel Morgan Park, clerk in the Education Office, said he was appointed an auditor of school committee accounts.
His Worship asked Mr Bennett whether he was prepared to now hand over the documents, &c. to the committee.
Mr Bennett said he had not got the Bank book mentioned in Mr Park's letter; it was in the Bank; he had to get a fresh one. He denied that there was at present any such body as the Lovells Flat School Committee; as the Act stated there had to be seven members, whereas Mr Robson, one of those elected, had forfeited his seat through non-attendance at meetings.
His Worship: Where are the documents for the year ended 1892?
Mr Bennett: I destroyed them.
After some little time, Mr Sim said the case had better be proceeded with, as Mr Bennett seemed disposed to be obstructive.
Mr Park, giving evidence said that when the committee's accounts were presented to him he found that Mr Bennett had a balance of £7 l6s. As was his usual custom he asked Mr Bennett to pay that into the Bank as evidence of its existence. Mr Bennett did not do so, and it was about that matter that all the trouble arose. Ultimately, he produced vouchers showing that £7 16s had been expended after March 31 and up to about June 13, 1891. Witness audited the accounts up to March 31, 1891, but did not audit those up to June 13; he merely inspected the receipts to see that they corresponded with the cash balance. Those accounts which he had inspected were necessary for the purpose of the complete audit for the year ending March 31, 1892, and they were the vouchers that the school committee required. At the time the audit was made for the year ending March 31, 1891, Mr Bennett produced the cash book and the Bank pass book. Subsequently, when requested to again produce them, he never suggested that he had lost them. Witness had heard of their loss for the first time that morning.
William Hewitson, chairman of the Lovells Flat School committee, was next called. In his evidence he stated inter alia that the committee, as the result of communications received from the Education Board, had passed a resolution authorising these proceedings to be taken.
Mr Bennett: Is Mr Robson a member of your committee. — Yes.
Has his seat not been vacant for nearly a month? — We were elected on April 25; held our last meeting on July 8. I know that Mr Robson has not attended two meetings.
Has he attended a meeting at all? — I think he attended the first meeting.
Mr Bennett: I contend that there is no school committee; as the Act says there shall be seven members, and Mr Robson has been absent for three months.
His Worship: You may contend what you like, the witness is under examination and you can ask him questions.
Mr Bennett: But he only says that he thinks Mr Robson attended one meeting.
To Witness, handing him the plaint note: Do you claim any of that property specified there? — Yes.
What portion of it do you claim ? — The lot.
You are one of the plaintiffs and say that I have in my possession the bank pass book? — Well, we have not got it in our possession, and you are the late committee Secretary.
Did you ever apply to me for it? The present secretary and I went to your house and demanded them.
Henry John Pink, clerk and treasurer to the school committee also gave evidence. He had received from Mr Bennett the minute book and the balance of money in hand when the new committee took office. He applied to him in writing (letter read). This application dated 22nd June last, requested the handing over of all books, accounts, papers, vouchers, &c. which came into Mr Bennett's possession as secretary and treasurer of the late school committee; stated that if the request were not complied with before June 30, legal action would be taken by the Education Board for their recovery; that this was to be taken as a final notice; also that the writer, (Mr Pink), would only to happy to call at Mr Bennett's house for the documents, &c, demanded, if he (Mr Bennett) would give them up. Previous to this witness made verbal applications for the documents and Mr Bennett said to him that he had no right to those books and papers; Mr Bennett, however, did not say that he had not got them. As far as witness knew, such books and papers should be handed ever by outgoing secretaries of school committees; they were necessary, it seemed, to the completion of the audit for the previous year.
Mr Bennett (handing witness the plaint-note): Do you claim any of the papers mentioned there? — Yes; We claim every item mentioned here.
By what authority do you claim it ? — Is it necessary that I should specify to Mr Bennett our authority?
Read this letter — Witness:
Dunedin, 5 May, 1892. To Mr H. PINK, Clerk School Committee, Lovells Flat.
I have to inform you that owing to the absence of necessary books and documents the Lovel's Flat School accounts have not been audited yet. The enclosed copy of a letter addressed by me to Mr Bennett (your predecessor) will apprise you of the nature of the information that I require. As all the documents and books relating to the transactions of the Lovells Flat committee must now be in your possession, I have to request you to be good enough to forward me the Bank book, the cash book for year ended 3lst March 1891, and the vouchers for the period from 1st April to 13th June 1891.
Mr Bennet certainly sent me a small book purporting to contain entries of Bank transactions, but as it was not the Bank's book I could not accept its entries as authentic. If the old pass book has been lost the Bank will supply another on application.
S. M. Park Auditor.
Mr Bennett: It states there that if the bank book was in the Bank you could boe supplied with it on application to the Bank. Have you applied for it? — Witness: I did not know whether it was in the Bank or not.
He does not know whether it was in the Bank! Is Mr Robert Robson a member of your committee? — He is, excepting on the legal point raised by you.
You don't know that either. Has he ever attended a meeting of the committee? — I think not.
Don't you know that the Act says the school committee shall consist of seven members? — No; I don't know.
Your Worship, the clerk of the Lovells Flat School Committee does not know how many members there should be on a school committee!
To Mr Pink: Have you a copy of the Act? (Laughter from the body of the Court). —
His Worship : What has that to do with the case?
Mr Bennett: In this claim against me, it is said, the Lovells Flat School Committee are stated as plaintiffs. What I contend is this, sir, — owing to Mr Robson forfeiting his seat, there is no committee ; as the Act distinctly says that there must be seven members of a committee; so if there is no committee there can be no plaintiffs in this action.
His Worship: Go on with your cross-examination then.
Mr Bennett to Mr Pink: Have you got got a copy of the Education Act to guide members of the committee? — You have got a copy of the Act.
Plaintiff's case having been closed,
James Bennett was sworn: He said, Your Worship, I contend that there is no Lovells Flat School Committee. I would refer you to the Education Act 1877, Amendment Act 1885, section 4: "If a member of a school committee be absent without leave during three consecutive months he shall cease to be a member of that committee." The School Committees Election Act 1891, passed 20th September, also says the same thing: "He shall cease to be a member of committee if absent for three months." The law also says that there shall be seven members to form a committee. Mr Robson has been absent for three consecutive monthly meetings without leave; therefore, I contend there is no committee. I have no further evidence to bring forward. I am just giving the interpretation which Mr P. G. Pryde, chief secretary of the Otago Education Board, has given of the Education Act of New Zealand. What I am sued for here are documents belonging to previous committees and which have already been audited. I respectfully contend that if it had ever been contemplated by the Legislature that outgoing school committees should hand over documents to their successors, it would have been specifically stated in the Act. No one sentence in the Act shows that those documents should be passed to anyone. Section 31 says "The Secretary of the Education Board shall preserve all documents"; but the Board is, I contend, a permanent corporate body, with offices, paid servants to look after its affairs; whereas school committees are not permanent corporate bodies, having no offices or paid servants. Section 82 of the Act says that all monies in hand shall be paid over to tbe outgoing committee's successors, and if it had ever been contemplated by the Legislature that the documents should also be passed over to the outgoing committee's successors, such would have been said in the Act. Section 69 says the Board has power to appoint the first meeting of committees to be held in April, and if it were meant that all documents should be handed over to the new committee, it would surely say that they should then be handed over to the new committee.
Mr Sim: If that is so, why did you give up the minute book? — Defendant: As the minute book was not full, I looked upon the book as coming within the meaning of the term "unexhausted funds."
But the book was not money? — It was bought with money. Your Worship, I have only asked them to show their title to the documents and they cannot do so. It is a monstrous thing for a person to come to another and say "I demand such a thing," while having not the slightest authority for making the demand.
Mr Sim submitted that in regard to one of defendant's contentions — that owing to one member having forfeited his seat through non-attendance for three consecutive monthly meetings, that a majority or a quorum formed the committee, and pointed out that by section 18 provision was made for filling the vacancy.
His Worship, without comment, gave judgement for the return of the documents sued for within one week, in default, the defendant to pay £10.
In reply to Mr Bennett, His Worship said that if the documents were not returned within the time specified, or the money paid, a distress warrant could be executed by the constable.
The costs were also given against defendant, £1 6s, in all made up of costs of Court, £2 5s; Mr Park's expenses, £1 ; professional fee £1 1s.
Messrs Hewitson and Pink were asked by the Bench whether they chimed expenses for attendance as witnesses, but said they would not do so. -Bruce Herald, 12/8/1892.
The following year, during the annual meeting of the School Committee, My Benet was nominated to fill a position on the committee - immediately, three other nominees withdrew their acceptance.
By The Way
Lovell Flat has for some time past occupied a unique position in our educational world. It is not long since Mr James Bennett threw down the gage of battle to the Board and all officialdom, and if he did not come out of the fight unscathed he achieved a considerable amount of notoriety, which is a marketable commodity in these levelling-up clays. Lovell Flat is again to the fore. This time Mr Bennett was duly nominated for the local School Committee, but no one cared for the honor of his colleagueship, so he is now monarch of all he surveys, and will be the educational Pooh-bah of the place.
Nemo. -Evening Star, 29/4/1893.
THE LOVELL'S FLAT SCHOOL COMMITTEE.
TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — No doubt the friends of Mr A. Lowery will be pleased to know that he has taken the honorable position of "chucker out," on account of the support he received from the chairman at the last meeting of committee, because I had the courage to express my opinion adverse to theirs, for when I arose to reply to a remark of the secretary, the chairman, as usual, began to bully me in that benevolent style for which he has been so long noted, which was the cue for Mr Lowery to leave his seat and come across the room to me, and threatened, not to "introduce the shoemaker to the tailor" as reported in the Herald, but that he would take me by the scruf of the neck, and chuck me outside if I dare to express my opinion adverse to his again. Noble, and manly, wasn't it, considering the difference in our age and size. The crowd that were round the window on the last occasion are anxiously waiting to witness Mr Lowery carry out his threat, which is considered will redound to his name seeing that I am past sixty years of age, but still have courage to express my opinion even if it should be contrary to his. Trusting you will insert the above,
— I am, etc., James Bennett. Lovells Flat, Dec. 4, 1893. -Bruce Herald, 4/12/1893.
THE COURTS. TO-DAY
SUPREME COURT-CIVIL SITTINGS.
(Before His Honor Judge Williams and a jury of four.)
George S. Hall (Lovell Flat) v. James Bennett (Lovell Flat). — Claim. £200, for libel. Mr C. Macgregor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr D. Reid (Milton) for the defendant.
The statement of claim set out that on September 26. 1899, the defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published of the plaintiff the following words: — ‘’You are the meanest individual I have ever dealt with. You remember how you cheated me last year in them few bags of oats, and then laughed at me in my own house when I paid you, and I daresay you have not forgotten how you did my wife nut of twopence when paying for some butter, before you was married. We don't forget. Such items, though trifling in themselves, are quite enough to reveal the character of the individual. . . . P.S. — I say again, to make an agreement that you will pay half the costs if I do the work to your satisfaction, and then offer me what anyone likes to value it at, is both contemptible, mean, and unjust, a determined attempt to defraud, bearing in mind it was my interest as well as yours to get it done as well and cheap as possible.”
The statement of defence set out that the defendant denied that he ever wrote or published of the plaintiff any of the words set out in the statement of claim. The statements contained in paragraph 1 of the statement of claim are true in substance and in fact, because (a) The plaintiff is the meanest individual the defendant has ever dealt with: (b) in the year 1898 the plaintiff agreed to sell the defendant six bags of seed oats. He supplied to the defendant one bag of seed oats of a good quality as a sample, and afterwards delivered to the defendant five bags of oats of inferior quality, which the defendant received under the belief that they were of the same quality as the sample bag. He afterwards discovered that they were not, and when he drew the attention of the plaintiff to the difference in the quality of the oats and complained of the plaintiff's conduct in connection therewith, the plaintiff laughed at the defendant, and said he could not spare any more of his best oats. Clauses c and d dealt with disputes between the two parties regarding butter and a dividing fence. The defendant paid into court one shilling to satisfy the plaintiff's claim.
John Bowie having given evidence of the publication of the libel,
Mr Reid addressed the jury on the facts of the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant, and in doing so characterised the case as a most, paltry one. He said he would show that the plaintiff's acts were such as would justify the defendant in alluding to him as a paltry individual. He (the plaintiff) quarrelled about the most paltry amounts, and went into farthings in his settlements with the defendant. The whole trouble about the oats, the butter, and everything else would not have arisen except for plaintiff's action regarding the boundary fence.
Mr MacGregor, in his opening, went into the matters in dispute between the two parties, and said that the jury would have to determine whose version of the story was correct, and if the defendant was entitled to use such language as he had done regarding the plaintiff. The defendant had paid into court one shilling, and so practically admitted that was sufficient compensation for the language used, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover something for the libel. After quoting Mr Justice Pennefather's definition of libel, he went on to say that the words imputed cheating, meanness, and bad treatment of his neighbors. The plaintiff had a right to have his character cleared, and he would prove that an apology had been asked for, but refused. As the plaintiff had pleaded justification, it would be only necessary for him, in the first instance, to prove the publication of the libel. A copy of the letter in question was sent to Mr Bowie, plaintiff's father-in-law, an old settler in the district. Mr MacGregor read a good deal of the correspondence which had passed between the two parties over the fencing dispute, in one of which the defendant wrote that plaintiff's “conduct as a son of a minister and as a deacon of the church was enough to make angels in Paradise weep.” The defendant also said that he had shown the letter contained in the statement of the claim to several members of the church. After proving the publication of the letters it would then be for the defendant to prove the truth of his statements. The amount claimed for damages was a moderate one. The defendant admitted that he had damaged plaintiff's character, but only valued that character at one shilling. The defendant was in the witness-box when we went to press this afternoon. -Evening Star, 21/3/1900.
Dunedin Gossip
The "Free Press" credits Mr Tyndall with, being introduced at Lovell's Flat as follows:— "Mr James Bennett was in the chair, and, in introducing the candidate, said he could not recommend him, but as a Britisher he appealed for a fair hearing for him." -Cromwell Argus, 16/11/1908.
Magistrate's Court, Milton.
William Fraser (Lovells Flat) v James Bennett, claim 12s 6d for goods supplied.
Mr Reid appeared fir the plaintiff, and the defendant conducted his own case.
As the matter in dispute was over a balance of accounts dating back to 1902, an adjournment for an hour was agreed to, so that the items in defendant's set off might be compared, and to ascertain whether any of them had been credited to the defendant. This having been done by Mr Reid and the defendant, and the items in dispute picked out, the hearing was resumed.
Mr Reid said the defendant did not dispute anything in what he called the No. 1 account — that was the account due to William Fraser, ending in 1905. Then there was a break in which Mr Fraser's sons carried on the business. Then in January, 1908, Mr Fraser resumed the business with his sons as managers. Everyone in the district knew that Mr Wm Fraser was the proprietor, but through oversight invoices had gone out in the name of Fraser Bros, on billheads in their possession. The plaintiff had frequently rendered his account, but the defendant, who was locally known as a bush lawyer and tendered advice to all and sundry, thought he had a point in the matter of dealing with Fraser Bros, though he (the defendant) knew perfectly well that the business was the plaintiffs (William Fraser's). Several hundred accounts had been sent out and none of them disputed, except by the defendant. The goods mentioned in "No. 2 account" had been delivered, and the charges were reasonable. A notice had been put up in the Lovells Flat store stating that it would close at a certain hour, and the plaintiff's name was on it, and it could be seen by anyone visiting the store. It was ridiculous to suggest that the defendant did not know that it was the plaintiff who was running the business.
The defendant admitted that he saw this notice.
Mr D. Reid, continuing, said that plaintiff disputed the item shearing 108 sheep at L1 100. Plaintiff at that time did not have any except 88 sheep, and was never in the habit of paying more than 16s 8d per 100. There were other items in the set off filed that day, the whole of which plaintiff disputed, as for instance: Hire of spring cart to go fishing, and hire of reaper, etc. Plaintiff never had thought of charging for such services, and they were common amongst neighbors.
Plaintiff and his son Andrew gave evidence on the facts outlined by Mr Reid.
After defendant had given evidence, sundry items admitted in defendant's set off were deducted from plaintiff's account, and sundry items in the set off filed that day were allowed — namely the charge for trap on a fishing expedition and use of reaper. The charge of £1 per 100 for shearing was reduced to 16s 8d per 100, and the number of sheep to 88. The plaintiff's original claim of £l6 12s 6d was thus reduced to L10 19s 6d by the set-off allowed, and judgement was given for plaintiff for this amount with costs £2 12. His Worship declined to allow costs on defendant's set off as notice of it had not been served on the plaintiff.
The defendant asked for time to pay, and His Worship said that was a matter between the parties now. -Bruce Herald, 18/10/1909.
A Sequel to an Adjustment of Accounts.
A KNOCK OUT BLOW.
At the S.M. Court on Friday, a case which had formerly occupied the attention of Mr Kenrick, S.M., was advanced another stage, The case was Wm. Fraser, Lovells Flat, v. James Bennett, farmer, Lovells Flat. At the former sitting of the Court accounts between the parties had been gone into, and the debit balance was on Bennett's side, and judgment had been given for that balance with costs. Mr Reid for plaintiff said the judgment debtor admitted the judgment, but had paid no part of the amount. Defendant had written in reply to the demand for payment that the application was "cruel and merciless."
To Defendant: Is that the way to write to people to whom you owe money.
Defendant (dramatically): Read it all out. Read it all out. Don't pick out what suits you, I've dealt with Fraser for 31 years, and that's the way he serves me.
Mr Reid: Now we don't want any ancient history nor any family matters. Did you write that letter.
Defendant: I don't know. Let me see it.
Mr Reid, handing it to him: Is that your writing, You know it is. Didn't you write that.
Defendant: "Yes I did."
He then started to enlarge on matters foreign to the case, and wished to produce a letter from the plaintiff.
His Worship: Where is it.
The defendant after delving into the recesses of his clothing, produced with a look of triumph a bundle of well worn letters, and after a lot of turning over secured the one he wished to produce.
His Worship: What is the date of it.
Defendant: 1907.
His Worship: That has nothing to do with this case. I can only deal with matters as from October last.
The defendant: I offered to pay 15s in the £ since October, and after me dealing with him for 31 years,
Mr Reid: You admit you have paid no part of the debt.
Defendant : I offered 15s in the £.
Mr Reid: Didn't the plaintiff write and offer you time to pay.
Defendant (snorting): Yes, if I paid 6 per cent, and gave security, I couldn't do such. a thing.
Mr Reid: Is it not a fact that you simply have "a derry" on the plaintiff and you won't pay.
Defendant: I can't pay.
Mr Reid: Haven't you got a farm of 105 acres, and some cattle and horses.
Defendant: Yes.
Mr Reid: Is it not a fact that since judgment was given against you you have been selling stock or removing things off the farm.
Defendant: Nothing of the sort.
Mr Reid: Then the stock and implements on the farm are just the same as when judgment was got. You are quite sure and positive of that.
Defendant: There has not been a thing taken off the place.
In reply to the solicitor he told what cows, horses, and implements he had, and scorned the suggestion that such a thing as a bill of sale would be over any of them. In view of the fact that he had dealt with defendant 31 years such a thing as paying 6 per cent, was unreasonable.
His Worship said the plaintiff could have issued a writ of execution before troubling about a judgment summons. It seemed to him that with a farm and stock and implements the defendant should have satisfied the judgment, and an order must be made for payment forthwith.
Mr Reid: It is pure contumaciousness on his part, Your Worship.
The Defendant, more humble, said he could not pay it all at once. He only got a small pension.
His Worship: Do you get the old age pension.
The Clerk of the Court: He gets a small one, not a full pension.
His Worship: I will make an order for payment of the full amount, the order to be suspended for one month. In default 14 days in Dunedin gaol.
Later, the defendant took up a position beside the Clerk of the Court to the hindrance of that functionary's work, and the S.M. asked the Constable to tell him to leave the Court, but though the voice of the S.M. was not raised, and though the defendant could be conveniently hard of hearing, he took in the situation at a glance and fled.
Later on he was searching the Court for some precious letter he had lost. "Someone must have picked it up" he wailed, and no one replying, he looked as one whom every hand was raised against, and his aforetime, jaunty, cocksure look had melted away, and he was limp and crestfallen. His demeanour betokened anathema to all law and lawyers and Courts generally. It seemed the setback of his lifetime. He, the keen fighter and the ever victorious in a polemic combat, seemed crushed. -Bruce Herald, 20/12/1909.
Deaths
BENNETT. — On July 3, at his residence, Lovell’s Flat, James Bennett, farmer; aged 82 years. -Otago Daily Times, 6/7/1914.
TUESDAY 1st SEPTEMBER.
At 12.30 o'clock sharp.
Important Sale of Free STOCK AND IMPLEMENTS,
AT THE FARM, NEAR LOVELLS FLAT.
Messers. D Reid and Co., LTD., have received instructions from the Executors in the Estate of the late James Bennett, to sell by public auction as above —
HIS FREEHOLD FARM, situated one mile from Lovells Flat, and consisting of 105 acres more or less, subdivided into six paddocks. Buildings: 4-roomed house, 3-stalled stable, cow byre, etc. The land is in excellent heart, is capable of producing heavy white and green crops, and is for POSITIVE SALE, in order to wind up the Estate.
The following Stock and Implements, etc will be sold at the same time and place without reserve: —
2 Mares, with foal at foot
1 Mare, 8 years
1 Colt, 6 years
1 Filly, 2 years
11 sacks oats, dray and frame, Whitchapel cart, d.f. plow, set 4-leaf harrows, set grub harrows, swing plow, wooden roller, scuffler, turnip sower, swingle-trees, grind stone, wheelbarrow, set buggy harness, 14 fowls, household furniture, tools, etc.
Outside Entries Received. -Bruce Herald, 20/8/1914.
No comments:
Post a Comment