Mr Tosswill objected that the wrong person was suing for the amount due to the child. The law gave power to minors to sue for themselves and the father in this cate should not have sued. His Worship said minora had such power, but there was nothing to prevent a parent from suing for his child. Mr Tosswill held that a parent could not sue in the R.M. Court on behalf of his son.
Mr Lynch said that point might stand for argument until the case was over. The hearing then proceeded.
Thos. Fallen plaintiff in reply to the Bench, said he was suing for his son, a boy of eleven. His Worship: Do you seriously mean to mean to say, Mr Tosswill, that a child of eleven could have instructed a solicitor and taken proceedings ? Mr Tosswill : Yes, your Worship.
Mr Lynch : The R. M. Act Section 24 says minors may sue. It does not say they must sue.
The Magistrate: This is a perfectly ridiculous contention, Mr Tosswill.
Examination continued ; The work had been done as set forth in the claim. Witness had not seen defendant since he had sent him a letter from Mr Lynch.
To Mr Tosswill; It was not on October 11th that the boy went to work for defendant. I was not putting in potatoes at the time. I was hedge cutting, The item of two days’ labour that I charge for in the account, is for putting up a wire fence for defendant. This was the case for plaintiff.
