DISTRICT COUH T.—

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 481, 26 July 1871, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Wednesday.

[Bofore T. Beckham, Esq., District Judge.] Major T. Ohaig.—Tbia was an action to recover £25, the value of a horse alleged to have been killed through plaintiff's negligence. There wus also a clause for £10 special, in consequence of injury, loss of time, and other damage sustained through defendant's negligence. The facts have been published in full. Mr. Hesketh this morning addressed the Court upon the case of the plaintiff, and Mr. Brookfleld for the defendant. His Honor in Bumming up said that this was a class of cases in -which evidence was more or less contradictory. People who observed facts frequently gave opposite accounts of what they witnessed. But it was clear in this that there wns gross negligence in case on one side or the other. One of the parties, the plaintiff, said that ho was driving at the rato of seven miles an hour, and this dwindled down to five miles. Clearly, therefore, there wns incautious, if not reckless, driving. The plaintiff was described as going down- the streets " like a steam engine." People who drovo with that speed through populous places must bo prepared for au accident of some sort, and if they did injury to another person he must bo equally prepared to pay for it. The evidence all went to the one point, that the plaintiff was going at a rapid rate, and the question arose what the defendant could have done to avoid accidents. —His Honor was of opinion that there was a clear case of negligence proved by the defence against the plaintiff, and gavo judgment for the defendant, with costs.

LTAMivLf v. Stevens.—This was also a part heard case. Judgment had been obtained, and a set-off was pleaded. By oonsent it was ordered by the Court that tbe money (£200), should be paid into Court within forty-eight hours, upon which the basis of an arbitration should be agreed to.

WINUING-TTP. — MeEMAIB Q-OLD MINMG Company. — The opposition of alleged contributions to the order applied for by the Official Agent to place them upon the list had been adjourned. In this ■ case it was stated that the opposition was' withdrawn, and the usual order was made.

This was all the business before the Court,