Sm,—l don’t often rush into print, it after reading the report of the case ■Allen v. Murphy in ur issue of the 15th Inst., 1 feel hotrod to write a few lines. The plaintiff, John Fallen, sued for “ 32 weeks’ wages due to Patrick Fallen, son of John Fallen.” 1 took the objec tion that the plaintiff could not sue for the debt due to another person, and i that, as section 24 of the Resident Magis trates Act, 1887, gave an infant the right to sue for wages in his own name, the proper plaintiff to claim this amount was Patrick Fallen. I urged that the objec tion was a legal objection, which would be recognised by any judge in England. I say without fear of contradiction that John Fallen had no more right to sue for the amount due to Patrick Fallen than the proprietor of your journal would have had. Any lawyer in the colony, who will look up the authorities in England and New Zealand, will say the same. We see every day that cases are decided on what are called legal objections, but surely the legal maxims and rules of law which bind the Judges of the Supreme Court in New Zealand, and the leading Judges in England ought nof to be ignored altogether by Resident Magis trates, I am, &c., William Tosswill.
