MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1399, 5 November 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASJIBDRTO N—FBID A Y , [Before Mr H. C. S. Baddeley, B.St DRUNKENNESS, ft first o T ender was fined 6s and costa wi b the usual alternative. CIVIL OASES. Rosa v Watftn, claim 15s—Mr Purnell for plaintiff Judgment for plaintiff for amount calmed and costs. Rosa v Harvey, claim £3 13s.—Mr Purnell for plaintiff Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costa Kennedy v G. Graham, claim £6 5a 6d Mr Cuthbertaos for plaintiff, Mr Caygill for defendant.—The defendant said ha had been engaged by the defendant as a farm laborer. He worked 21 weeks, and left in consequence of an “ argument” which arose because the defendant warded him to do work for which the implements with which he was supplied were not suited. The amount he sued for was the balance of wages due to him.In answer to Mr Caygill, the plaintiff said there bad been no “argument” prior to the breaking of a drill, which occurred about five days before witness left. Defendant gave witness a week’s notice at this time. Defendant had often said he would not pay* witness unless he deducted the cost of repairing the drill. —George Graham, the defendant, said the drill was broken through the plaintiff’s negligence. The plaintiff was in the bab-t of leaving the drill in order to “ yarn” with men on the next property. Witness had often warned plaintiff that the drill would some day be smashed if he lef the h( rses. Witness bad told the plaintiff that he would not pay him unless a deduction were made for the damage done to the drill. A short time after the plaintiff left he came to witness anJ ad mitted that the drill was broken through his own negligence, and offered to take the money witness had previously offered, and witncEt paid him.—James Burgess said he had Heard the plaintiff agree that the money paid him by the defend set was a full settlement.—J. Thomas gave evidence.— The Magistrate thought the evidence waa not altogether satisfactory, and -gave judgment for plaintiff for £3 Tss fid, without costs—Mr Caygill made application for an order that the money remain in Court pending the result of an action for recovery of damages done to the drill. —The Magistrate did not see his way to grant the application, Friaby v Shury, claim £4 3afid, andShnry v Ifriaby c aim £6l6—Mr Wilding for Mr Frl-by, Mr Crisp for Mr Shury.—Tha action atoi-e out of damages caused fc-> vehicles by a collision which each of the parries to the action al waa due to the -negligence of the other.—A Friaby sa’d he »as in Ashburton on October 16. He was driving h me in the evening at the rate of ab-nt six or coven miles an hour: Auom seven o’clock he met Mr Shury, who was travelling at the rata of ahuu: ten milts an hour. Be b*d just tinned the c :rner, and was about (he centre of the toad He seemed to get cot.fu ed, snd witness thought he pulled the wrong rein. The consequence was that the two vehicles came into collision. Witness triel to avoid t e collision hut waa unable to get oat of the way. W t-iess had frequently seen Mr Shury d iviog, and was or opinion that Ho was a very bsd dr.ver.—By Mr Crisp : Witnett h d bal two or three drioks th»t day. No on® h-id refused to supply him with liquor before be left. Witness denied j driving furiously along East street when going home. He sis j dented driving furiously at any part Of the road between the town and the spot where the accident occurred Witness was on the cent re of the read when be first saw Mr Shari’s trap. When bis trap came round the corner witness was on the p-oper side cf the road. The off side morn got r-W:y a - d one was brooked d wd. The two shafts of bis vehicle were broken. When Shury changed witness he asked him what he was doing on the wrong fide of road. Witness was quite sober at the time of tba accident. Be drove home. By the Court—About a mile and a half. Mr Baddeley—Bather a risky thing to do—driving through a river. Witness —Yes, sir. Mr Wilding asked the ruling of the Bench in reference fo the pace at which Frisby was driving. If he (Friaby) drove rapidly in Ashburton it was not to say that he did so two cr three miles from Ashburton. Mr Crisp could prove that Frisby drove at a very rapid rate past the Woollen Factory and other places. By Mr Wilding—l was quite capable of managing my hones. By the Court—l had a few glasses of whisky between 2 and 6 p.m. B. McOwen, manager of the Bans of New Zealand, Ashburton, stated that he saw Frisky on the night cf the accident, about 7 p m., driving. Witness was on the footpath and Frisby on the road. Frisby was sitting s'eadily in 'he trap, endeavoring, as witness thought, to keep up with another trap. Coaid not say if he was drunk cr sober. He did not give witness that imprtssion. He was driving steadily. Had had experience of driving. Always considered Friaby a competent driver. Had seen better drivers than Mr Shury. Would not like to call Shnry was notoriously bad driver, having heard ha was. Frisby was going about six miles an hour. By the Court —A good trotting hone would go faster than Frisby was driving. -L. Johns was on horseback Accompanying Mr Frisby’s trap on the evening of the accident when Mr Shores trap earns in view. Friaby p piled on to” his pt'oper side as much a ppasible. (It seemed ■to witness that Shnry pulled the "prong rein and consequently as collision waa brought about. Friaby was driving at the rate of about six miles an hour. By Mr Crisp : Frisby was rot under the influence of liquor. He had had four drinks that afternoon, Shury was going about ten or twelve miles miles an hour.—W. Patterson who lived at Frisby’s saw Shnry driving past tha house on the day of the accident. Ho was driving at a pretty unart paceeight or ten miles an hour. Shortly afterwards Frisby camejhome : witness assiitec| to take the horse cut, it? bad not cce’a overdrl vtn. Frisby was quite sobei, —John Thomas, barman at the Central Hotel, remembered Frisby starting for home about half-past six o’clock on October 16; he was Ijoite sober.—K. Snllaway saw Frisby starting for home. He was sober.—W. Baker passed Frisby on the evetrirg in question. He was going heme and witneca stopped him and entered ioto conversation with him. He was peifeetly tober. —Thia waa iho case for Mr Wilding’s client Mr Crisp called Charles Pratt, barman at the Somerset who said Mr Frisby called round at the hotel about 5.30 pm on the 16th and asked for a drink. W.tuetsrefused to supply him and told him tin a friendly way chat be had bad enough-* By Mr Wilding ; Friaby tps nr,| fha( witness would call drunk. ' Be yas papj able of driving a trip—A. Buntjng said that on tha 16ih hi saw a trap and * horse mm pass the Woollen Faotpry. They were galloping—By Mr Wilding; Witness could not swear who was driving ;he trap. Witatss thought it waa going ct the rale of .bout twelve miles an hoot —A. H. Shnry said he bad been in the habit of driving horses since *62 and bad never bad an accident before the occasion u qaestiou. Witness had driven the two orses he had an the I6th for abont four /ears. Witness tad just turned the eerier near the culvert when he saw Frisby trxp con iug sriong with two horseme following up behind T hey were comln at such s furious rate that witness an hit companions thought it was a noawi

#rap with horsemen trying to catch it. Frlsfcy was comb g on his wrong aide. Witness pu'led clean < ff the road in order to allow Frisby the whole road. He pulled on to the wr-ng aide cf the road because if he had kept on Hi* ri. ht side he would have run into Fiisby. Witness had pulled np the h rse when Frisby came serosa the roed and struck witness’s vehicle broadside on. Witness’s vehicle was nearly stationary and Frisby struck it with such force that the horse was knocked down, the shaft broken, several other injuries done and witness thrown out.—Miss Sergant said Mr Frisby psa ed her about seven o’clock on October 16 h. Bis horse was galloping. Stewart, who was In Mr Saury’s tran on the occasion cf the accident corroborated Mr Shnry’s evidence. Mr Frisby’s trap was or Doing so fa»t that witness took ft for a runaway. Witness thought bhury s action in pulling on to the side of the road the wisest under the circumstances Frisby’s trap came across the road almost at right angles—B. Simpson also gave evidence.— After counsel on b 1 th sides had addressed the Court, judgment w»e given for defendant in the case Frisby V Shnry for plaintiff in case Shury v Frisby, The Court rose;