RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1941, 26 July 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tms Day. (Before A. Chetham-Strode, Esq., R.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. J. Neil, H. Roger, and A. Napier, on bail, were each fined 10s for being drunk. Thomas N’olan having been imprisoned since Saturday, was discharged. Mary Jane Gibbs, or drunkenness and obscene language, was fined 20s. ASSAULT. A. Millar was charged on the information of Michael Cox, hotel keeper, with assaulting him yesterday, from the evidence, it appeared that the accused had been cook in the employment of Mr Cox, and that he pressed to be served with lirink. This was in the first i. stance refused, but afterwarns he was allowed to have some beer. He became excited, and at length it was necessary to expel him from the house. In the course of the struggle thatetimed he made two attacks upon the complainant holding him, by the whiskers, and ultimately getting his thumb int his mouth and biting it severely. The statement of the prosecutor was confirmed by evidence. The pris ner was fined L 3, or in defau t, 10 days’ imprisomnen. Civil Cases. P. Mitchell v. Wingfield.—The plaintiff claimed 20s for damage done to a gla s cas ■ by a sheep which the defendant was driving The sheep, which was being followed by dogs, rushed into the plain tiff’s shop, jumped upon the case broke the g ass and d m ged a quantity of neck ties, handkerchiefs, and scissors. The value of the goods was Bs, and the repairs to the glass case cost I2s. A witness was called who said he went with the plaintiff (who could not speak Engl.sh well), at his request to the defendant, and asked him if the sheep belonged to him. He said no, nor was e.c driving them. The defendant, who is a drover, said the sheep had broken away from the Commercial Yard, and at the request of the plaintiff, as an act of kindness, he took the sheep out of his shop. He bad nothing to do with driving the flock. The Magistrate told the plaintiff he had no claim upon the defendant, who evidently was doing an act of kindness, and his being summoned was an evidence of what might happen to a man in the .A rcade. Case dismissed.

Livingston and Hawkins, in the estate of W. J. Henniugham, v. Bethuue.—The claim was for 16s, for subscription to the New Zealand Sun. Case postponed to Friday. M 'Ewan v. Thompson, a claim for rent and rations, L 4 -is Gd.—The defendant not appearing, judgment was given by default for the plaintiff for the amount. Rnsht n v. the Trustees of the late John Tones and others, forming the Harbor Steam Company, for damage done by the steamer Wallace rui niug into the lighter Henrietta while lying ast. rn the barque Record. The damages were laid at L 39 los. Mr Wilson for the plaintiff, and Mr James Smith for the defendants. James Kushton, master and owner of the Henrietta, said the Henrietta, lighter, was lying astern of the bark Record, then alongside of the Coal Hulk, when the steamer ran

into her quarter, forced her against the hea mooring chains of the bulk, broke two stanchions short off the covering boards, and smashed the rail and loosened several other stanchions. The next day the lighter took in coals, but in standing across Carey’s Bay, he happened to look into the vessel, and found there was a foot of water in the hold. He wai obliged to bring up at the brewery jetty. He came up to town and saw Mr Mills, who said they would not hold themselves liable, but would render every assistance, and sent down the Quoeu, lighter, to lighten the Henrietta, in tow of the Peninsula. r l he claim was for repairs to the Henrietta, and loss of freight, and time.

D. Mackenzie, a seaman, on board the Henrietta, confirmed the account given by the witness Rushton.

Caotain Dickie, Harbor Master, surveyed the Henrietta. He found some stanchions gone, the rails split, and some other stanchions loosened. The bottom was in bad condition, and required caulking and fastening. There was no appearance of straining. Corning on the chain would have a tendency to make the lighter leak, although she had not leaked before. He should say 50 tons of cargo would strain a vessel of the size of the Henrietta, which only measured about 25 tons. Putting too great a weight into a vessel had a tendency to strain her. In cross-examination, the witness said that from the state of the vessel’s bottom very little straining would cause her to leak. She would require caulking sooner or later. Had there been no collision, it was possible she might have come safely up without leaking. Thomas FI yd, shipwright, had examined the Henrietta, and caulked her a week befoie the collision. He caulked her sides and her chime seam, and found her quite tight a terwards. He had caulked her bottom about nine months ago. The leak must have been in tbe sides. Sbe floated every tide, and after he had caulked the sides he found that the vessel was quite tight William Jenkins repaired the Henrietta after the col ision. He had to cut two planks nut where they were chafed, and to relay the bottom. He tried the top seams, but they did not require anything doing to them. The damage to the planking was through coining in contact with some hard substance. The planking was very sound, and the caulking at the bottom in fair condition. The planking was taken from the port side (that nearest the hulk). The value of the stanchions and rail, rest' red, would be Jos or 40s The expense of caulking and other repairs was Ll3 10s. D. Robertson, employed with the previous witness, gave similar evidence. The witness Rushton was recalled, and said that he had 45 tons on board the Henrietta. On previous occasions he had had 80 tons

Mr Smith said the defence was that the accident was one that no care nor skil ; could avoid, and if there had been negligence, it was on the part of the plaintiff, by placing his lighters in such a dangerous position as to render such an occurrence highly probable. Aud that, under any circumstances, the claim for damages was excessive. Thomas Hart, master of the Geelong was in command of that steamer, with the Wallace in tow, when the accident took place. They had to make a sweep round to get alo igside the hulk, and finding they could not ito so. he called to the men on hoard the Henrietta to slack astern. The engines were stopped heforo he called out. He was not aware that damage had been done. The tide carried the vessels against the Henrietta.

James Eacly, master of the Wallace, said the boats had uo way on, and were drifting away with the tieb. The shock was so slight that no damage could result Tom it. He believed the stanchions were not broken by the biow, but that they were broken before. The injury to the bottom could not hare resulted from the shock, and was most proably caused by the lighter bumping on the stones near Siuart street Jetty, which no vessel could withstand. T. W. Bamford, Clerk to the Harbor Steam Company, described the damage to the lighter, and also stated that she was in a very neglected condition. The bottom was so bad that, when on the blocks at Pelichet Bay Jetty, the water ran in and out of her in cross-examination, the witeess said, bad there been no collision, it was possible the lighter might have gone two or three voyage- safe y. Thomas Walker, ship carpenter, was on board the Wallace at the time of the colli* sion, which wis very slight, and very little damage was done. He was present at the survey, and found the bottom in very bad c mdition, through neglect and want of

caulking. Captain Thompson, Chief Harbor Mastoi, discribed the manner in which the accidejit took place, which he said occurred through the difficulty of steering two steamers lashed alongside each other, through a fleet of small craft, and in consequence the tide set them upon the lighter. He could not sec how the accident could have been avoided. If the master of the Henrietta had known of the steamer’s coming, he ought to have taken measures for the safety of the lighter. It was the duty of every master of a vessel to have a band on deck to guard against an emergency. It appeared to him if the port bilge o' the lighter was damaged by collision with the cable of the hulk, the starboard b Ige w< >uld have suffered nlore from the bow of the Wallace. His Worship said it appeared to him from the evidence, that the accident arose through the master of the Geelong shutting off his steam too soon, having regard to the state of the tide. If men chose to lash vessels alongside each other so as to render steering difficult in a place like Port Cha'mers, they must take the consequences. With regard to the point raised of want of ordinary care by the plaintiff, lie considered the lighter had been properly placed, and that a heavy steamer coming into collision with one like the Henrietta, would, in all probability, inflict damage to the extent represented. The only item that would not be allowed, was thp claim for freight, for which ho had a right of action against other parties. Verdict for the plaintiff, LoO lls Od and costs, Mills, agent for the Harbor Steam Company, v. Cummings.—This was a <laim for L 22, for towage of the Hydra f. om the Heads to Port Chalmers.

Mr Smith, for the plaintiffs, stated the case, and called

Thomas Hart, master of the Geelong, who said he received a telegram from Dunedin that a vessel wanted a tug on the 3rd May. Ic arrived too late for that day, but on the fol owing day he went to the Heads, agree* ably to its instructions, towards the Hyd' a, then anchored outside. The wind was too heavy to take the vessel in tow, but afterwards lie towed her to Port Chalmers. The

Hydra was over 500 tons ; the charge for towage of a vessel over 500 and under GOO tons was 1,22. In cross-examination, he said he received his instructions from Mr Mills, not from Captain Cummin, s. On seeing the master of the Hydra, lie told him he thought Mr Burke had sent him. The !• leaner was at anchor outside at the same time, and she was towed up a terwards. The Hydra, being a eattl" ship, had the preference James Mills, manager of the Harbor Steam Company, said, in consecpn nee of information received, he telegraphed the tug Geelong to tow the Hydra and Eleanor in. The wind being contrary, that was the usual course He received no instructions from Captain Cummin" nor the owners of the Hydra to that effect.

Alex. M ‘Culloch was on hoard the Hydra on the 4th May. On Monday, May 3rd, the captain put up a signal that he w into i a tug. The ship lay off and on, waiting for a tug, and then anchored. Ho tug coming out, and the vessel parting from one of her anchors, the captain signalled to send either a steamer or tug. The first signal, 1527, was flying a ll night, and was not answered. The tug came out about seven o’clock next morning. In cross-examination, be said it was Cai tain Cummings who signalled for a tug, not at his (the witness’s) suggestion. The signal, No 1527, meant “communicate the following.” It was not answered. Signals were hoisted next morning, at seven o’clock. Captain Cummings was surprised at receiving no answer. The other signals signals were not answered. He and the Captain selected the signals Mr Burke and he were each part owner of the horses on board.

Mr Harris asked a non-suit, for although the tug conveyed the vessel to Port Chalmers, it was not in consequence of orders re ceived by the Captain or owners that her services were received. There could be no doubt the owners received instructions from gome one, and those who sent the tug should pay the expenses. Mr Bmith maintained that the captain having signalled for the services of a tug, and that want being supplied, be had accepted the service offered, and was therefore liable for the cost.

. His Worship decided there was a case to answer.

Mr Harris called Captain Gumming maste of the Hydra, who said he arrived at the Heads on the morning of May 3rd. His cargo was part coals and part horse--, wh'ch were partly owned by Mr M'Culloek, and partly by Mr Burke. The wml on arrival was light and unfavorable. He hoisted a signal for a tug, and it was agreed with Mr M'Cullock they were to pay each half the cost. The Eleanor had been there since the previous evening. The master of that vessel went alongside, and after some conversation with him the signal was hauled down. The following moruing the Geelong tu ,r went down, and in conversation with the master of her, it was stated that he had gone down through instructions from Mr Burke. In cross-examination, he said that the signal was flying for a mg from 8 in the morning of the 3rd till 12. It was never repeated from the Heads. With ut a s cam tug he could not have got in immediately. r--e would have had to wait for a wind. He should have taken a tug if he could have got one, as the cattle were perishing. In reply to the Magistrate, he said that, on being" aware that the Government subsidy was withdrawn, he hauled the flag down.

His Worship said, in a matter of this kind it was not posi' de to have a direct verbal contract between a tug owner and the master of a ship. It appeared to have been in the Captain’s rand to take a tug, and he had signalled for one, although that signal was not answered. The signal was a request to all owners of steamers in the Harbor of Otaeo to go out and take the vessel in tow, as she had a perishable cargo. The tug, Geelong, going alongside thell\ dra was a consequence of that signal. The muster of the Geelong wouhl have gone earlier had the tide served, and did go as early as possible. Another strong point was, the vessel availed herself of the tug. Me thought the defendant liable. Verdict for the plaintiff.