RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2040, 18 November 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Yesterdav. (Before A. 0. Strode, Esq., E.M.) Urm Casks. Peter Henderson. Charles Brown, John Johnson, «tkl John Johnson, v. George Ford.—A slnim for LIOO, for damages through careless lighting of a fire. Mr Stewart for the plaintiffs ; Mr flams for the defendant. By agreement, both plaintiffs and defendant were ordered out of Court Peter Henderson, one ef the plaintiffs, said that he and the other plaintiffs occupied land adjoining that of tho defendant, and that on Sunday, October the, 24th, while in the hut they had built, he observed a fire approaching from the direction of the defendant’s land, which burned the hut and a quantity of firewood and other material. He estimated the loss on firewood at 78} cords, at 10s a cord. It was stacked and ready for delivery —the hut, at LlO ; 200 feet of sawn timber, LI ; a quantity of tools was burnt, and the growing timber damaged, to tho extent of L 4 12s 6d ; ifnd the' stock-yard was destroyed, worth LI. The damage done to the hush he cstimrted at L 45, as it would cost L 4 10s an acre extra labor to clear it. He spoke to Mr Ford about the fire, who said he eould not help it ; " a man must clear his ground." Two men named M'Kinnon and Bcott, who had been working with him, said the fire was kindled by Ford. He said they had lit j it. I—Alexander Scott recollected the fire on the 24t.h October, He saw it burning on the plaintiff s land, but did not "know whence it owe. Mr Ford and his son wAs 'burning one pine top on the Saturday a little distance on his own land, about six or eight feet from the survey lino There is now a fence, but there was not one then. The fire did not burn an hour. It was not smouldering all Saturday afternoon, and he saw none. There was no continuous burnt line from where the pine top was burnt to the plaintiff’s hut. There were some heaps of rubbish smouldering, which had been burning for a fortnight, a good distance from the land in the same paddock. They were about half a chain from the boundary. It was necessary to keep them covered up, or they would not have burnt. On the Saturday the wind was blowing moderately from the plaintiff’s land to Mr Ford’s land. There were some fencing posts laying on each side of the boundary line. If the fire lit by young Ford had set fire to the plaintiff’s property on Saturday, these posts would have been burnt. There was a change of wind on Sunday. If the plaintiffs had exerted themselves, part of the firewood might have been saved. From the manner in which the plaintiffs had gone about clearing their land, it was hardly possible to escape fire.—Chas.' Brown, one of the plaintiffs, said he saw the defendant and his son feeding a fire on his land on Saturday afternoon, between five and six o’clock. The fire that burnt the property on Sunday came from defendant’s property. Ho could trace the fire from that p'ace distinctly.—Several witnesses were called to corroborate the proceeding evidence.—For the defence Mr Geo. Ford was called. He said he employed Scott and Mackinnon to clear the ground by concontract. All the scrub was burned off in August. There were a few heaps of rubbish smoking. One pine tree top was lying near the boundary line. His son set fire to it. There was not above a cart load. He first knew that fire had been put to the tree on his return in the afternoon. He went np to it, but there was not a vestige of fire to be seen. He did not feed the fire. If Charles Brown said that he and his son went and fed that fire ho was saying what was untrue. There was not a vestige of fire remainingwhen he examined the ground that evening. He saw the bush-fire first when leaving church, and hastened home as fast as possible. He told the men they had chosen a had day for burning.—Evidence was given in support of these assertions by the witness. His Worship reserved judgment.

This Day.

(Before J. Fulton, Esq.,|R.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Ann Shirley, for using obscene language in a right-of-way, was fined 40s. MINOR OFFENCES. Matthew Dixon, for riding across the Botanic Gardens, was fined 2s 6d ; and Geo. Elliott, for being distant from his horse and dray, sg. The latter indulged in some disrespectful comments on the Bench, and was detained in custody until the Court rose, when, being placed in the dock, he apologised, and was dismissed, JUDGMENT. His Worship gave judgment this morning in the case of Webb v. Fox. He quoted from “Anged on Contracts, p. 216—“ The defendants ought not to bo responsible for loss occasioned by the peculiar nature of the article, nor leakage arising from secret defects of the casks, which could not have been observed or remedied after the casks wese stowed away. His Worship then said “ I have come to the conclusion, from the evidence, that the loss in this case arose from a latent defect—vir., a nail-hole in. the cask at the time of shipment, of which the defendants could not have been aware, more particularly as it is in evidence that there was a certain amount of leakage and dirt on the outside of the casks at the time of shipment. Indeed two or three of the -witnesses have stated for the defence that, even when they know the cask was empty, they were unable to ascertain from whence the leakage had proceeded. Judgment for the defendant. INFOKMATIONS BY THE INSPECTOR OF NUISANCES. The following fines were inflicted for the offences specified : —George Sutton, premises in a dirty state, 10s ; Archd. Gibbs, plying for hire elsewhere than in the appointed place, 2s 6d ; Robert Cunningham and Thos. Little, on similar charges, dismissed ; John Fletcher, four cows wandering in the streets, 2s 6d each ; Joshua Eccles, dismissed. INFORMATION BY THE MARKET INSPECTOR. James Scott, hawking a calf without a license, 7s 6d and costs,

ASSAULT. Catherine Clisby, waa charged by A. Sinclair with assaulting and beating him* The complainant and defendant are neighbors, and it appeared that on Friday last Sinclair was digging a hole to put a post in, when Mrs Clisby took umbridge at the proceeding and determined to stop it. Sinclair persisted when the lady not only shoved the earth into the hole, but slapped complainant twice on the face. He took her by the shoulders, and putting her into the house, told her to go home and mind her own business. The de* fondant called two witnesses to prove that the complainant struck the defendant. Sinclair being recalled said he had bought the cottage and ground adjoining, and was proceeding to fence the ground by arrangement with Mr Reid, land agent, when Mrs Clisby interfered, to prevent it. The defendant was fined 20s and costs. ILLEGAL DETENTION 07 CLOTHES, Ann Henderson charged Ann Brett with detaining sundry articles of clothing, to the value of L 9. The defendant said she was willing to give up the clothes, and an order was made accordingly. To pay Is and costs.