RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT FRIDAY.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 435, 2 June 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT FRIDAY.

[Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.] Edwards v. Murray. — Claim, £9 3s. Gel. Verdict for plaintiff. Cases Adjourned.—Woolley v. Tregear, £14 75., next Court day.—Park and Carrol v. Jeffeoat, 19, one month.—Pearce v. Anderson, 610, one month.— Davis and Brooking v. MesBenger, £14 Bs., next Court day. Defended Cas> s.~Quick v. Perkins, claim £12 os., for the hire, and damages to, a horso hired by defendant.—Mr. MacCorinicic for plaintiff, Mr. Wynu for tho defence.—Plaintiff evidence as to f.ho hiring of a car>iaue and four horses by the defendant, and that on the return of the carriage one of the lursos was seriously injured, having the appearance of having been thrown down.—Joseph Thompson, book-keeper to plaintiff, gave evidence of d, similar eharactei*, and said that defendant told him that when he came to the top of shortland-street he gave a pair of reins to a gentleman sitting beside him, for a few minutes, until ha got his hands a little warm. —Michael Gorman, stableman, gave evidence as to the state of the , horse when brought back to the stable. Before uking him out of the vehicle, defendant struck the horse with a whip, and caM, "You Ihavehad myrevengeonyouatliist." -Thomas Miller, Veterinary Surgeon, said when called upon to attend the horse, found eleven cuts in different places. Both knees ■vere broken. The eye was cut. Bo!h hind etloeka ahd the hocks were cut,. There were Mir.ee cuts on the eide. He believed the injury was caused by bad driving. He knew that the horse was previously perfectly safe, md aa good a lady's hack as ever went on the ■ oad.—Mr. VVynn, for defence, said ho thought (hat on the point of negligence the Court jould not require him to call evidence, as it was for the plaintiff to prove negligence, and not for the defendant to prove tlmfc there was not, negligence. He wouid take the opinion of the Court on the question before proceeding vith his defence.—After some discussion iefendant wits called, and said ho had nothing' o do with the hiring of the trap from Me. He was simply asked to drivo the imp, a3 the person who hired it wag unable to lrive. Mr. Quick asked him to collect £2 from the party hiring the carriage and four. Ec had had some experience as a driver of four horses. The horse that was injured had no breeching on—nothing but a collar and traces. The break was useless, a3 it had no power on the trap. The accident took place coming down Shortland-street. He put the break on as hard as he could. Coming round the corner of Shortland-street Mr. Cameron had hold of the reins for a short time. The horses walked all the way down the hill. The accident happened opposite Mr. Canning's. He then had full charge of the horses. The horse in question had been uneasy and restless all the drive. The horse plunged himself down. The only way to have avoided the accident would have be, n to a;ive the horses their heads, and gallop down the hill.—Cross-examined by Mr. MacCormick: The man who hired the phaeton did hot go out in it. He went in another trap with, Mr. Campion. The horse fell twice iv Shortlandstreefc. The first time he squatted down on his haunchea, and then fell. He plunged again about ten yards farther on and fell, and instead of trying to get up, he plunged and kicked as he lay.—G-. Camoron gave similar evidence.—The Court was of opinion that no negligence had been shown, but that defendant was liable for the hiring. Judgment for £2, oosts £3 Bs. '.