MAGISTERIAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1915, 10 August 1888, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL

ASHBDKTON— THURSDAY.

(B fore Mr 0, A. Wray, R.M ) CIVIL CASES

J. Ranger v Thos Scott, claim £10. — Mr Purnell for plaintiff, Me Wilding for iho def. ndant. Tho . laim was for damage done to a waggon. The .facts of the o *ee aa stated by the plaintiff, were (hat on the occaaion of a pionio held by the Ashburton H itel employees some time •go, the defendant, So-nt, who took a prominenc ptrt In organising the afftlr, wont to the plaint ff and requested the loan of the latter'a express w^gon, The waggon w»a lent to Soot*- who placed it m charge of a lad, named Hyde. la returning from ihe pionio, Hyde, i; was alleged, drjva re klassly ; at an} rate the vehicle came to grief and was conuderably damaged. This faot coming to plaintiff's knowledge on the evening of the accident h.9 saw Scott and Hyde m ragard to the matter of getting it repaired. A few days subsequently the jvaggon waß b'OUiht (no a coachboildefb' yard, hut plaintiff ascertained that no instructions had been I given for its repair. As plaint ff rrqiired it constantly m his businass he instructed the ooaobbuilder to go on with the work. The ropalro done cost £7 Ha 6J, but m addition to this tbe waggoo was iujaredin other ways, and plaintiff alleged that Its value had been depreciated by at least £5. Plaintiff had not yet been reooup?d, aud he looked to Sjott for payment, not recognising Hyde m the matter at all.— Tha evidence of the plaintiff bore out tbe facts as stated above. In croßs-examlna-tlou be said that Scott sent Hyde to him for the vehiole and plaintiff directed him to Baker's where it thea was. — A. Dee, who was at the pionio, said that coming home, Hyde who was not sober, drove m a very reckless fashion, galloping past the other vehio es. A few minutes a'terwards witness saw tbe express lying upset down, and generally smashed up. Witness attributed the accident to the reckless driving of Hyde.— J W. Biker, said tbat the vehiole when taken from his yard prior to the p'eaic was In good order and condition, and with proper oare no acoldent would have result 3d. Witneßß gave evidence as to the repairs effected by him to the trap after the accident. He had sent In tbe bill to loth Hyde and Scott, bat each repudiated It ; he bad consequently to look to Ranger for payment. — Triii was the plaintiffs case. — Mr Wilding asked for a non-suit, as there as there was no evidence tbat the accident was the result of|negliger,crfl -Tbe Magistrate thought there was a prima facie case of negligence on the part of Hyde. — Mr Wilding then called the defendant, Thomas Scott, who denied having anything to do with the loan of tbe vehiole from Ranger ; neither did he see Hyde or employ him to drive, both these arrangements falling to Eigle who had the gettirg up of th*t part of tbe pionio. Hyde waa not m any wry the worse for liqu )r at aoy time on the dey of the picnic.— By Mr Purnell: Witness denied having spoken to Ranger about the loan of the trap at all. Ranger had oome to witness about the matter several times, but he had not referred him to Eagle Had referred him to Hyde as being tbe one who broke tbe vehiole. — O. Eagle said that he?>got the waggon from plaintiff ; SoDtt had nothing to do with obtaining it. (Doming home from tb,e pionio Hyde, as far as witness saw was not driving at an excessive space ; only going at a fast trot — By Mr Purnell ; Did not refuse to ride back with Hyde ; and did cot kn.QW if Any others refused; H.yde was not intoxicated^— W. Hyde 7 , the driver, aaid that the accident was caused through the bo!t of the shaft breaking, and the shaft falling down and startling the horse which ran away and upEet the velrc'e Witness did not drive at any time at a furious pace, the horse never goirjj/ ou.t qf a trot till the accident was cavjaed, Wifcaeea did not con eider himself as acting for Pcott — By Mr Purnell: Witness had only two beere; he did not have "the best part of a keg." A number of persons drove out with him, but only one lad came back, — Counsel having ad dressed the Court the Magistrate paid that it had not been shown defendant waa liab'e. Plaintiff: was non suited