RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2134, 9 March 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day.

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Oases. Russell v. Gibson.—A claim for L3O 17s Gd for bacon sold and delivered. Mr Ward for the defendant. The defendant is a resident in Port Chalmers and purchased of the plaintiff a quantity of bacon, part of which was returned, but which was sent back again to the defendant. It was a somewhat complicated aiiair, as the defendant had become insolvent and sent the hams and bacon unsold back to the plaintiff. He had only stated himself indebted for the value of the goods retained, lOGlbs, and the plaintiff now sought to recover the balance, L’2o 17s Gd. Eor the defence it was attempted to be shown that the bacon was bad in quality and that an airangement was made with the plaintiff that only the quantity sold should be paid for. His Worship considered that only the quantity sold should be paid for, as it appeared that ample opportunity was afforded to the defendant to ascertain the quality of the goods, and not having included the balance in his schedule of debts he was liable to pay the amount. Judgment for L2O 17s Gd for plaintiff. Donald MTvay v. The Trustees of the Pine Hill Road Board.—A claim for L2S Gs Gd for fencing a part of the new road in the Pine Hill road. Mr Harris for the plaintiff. Mr M‘Fie on behalf of the trustees admitted the claim to be just. Mr Harris thought it necessary to make some explanation as to the position of the case. Pie stated that the claim arose out of the fact that the local Road Board found that another line of road than that laid out by the Governffient was uecessrry to suit the interests of the inhabitants of the Pine Hill district. In order to facilitate making the road, the plaintiff gave the land on condition of its being fenced. This was done partly with the consent of the General Road Board. There was plenty of money to pay this and all other claims of a similar character, but some settlers thinking another line of road would be more suitable to their interests, petitioned the General Road Board not to sanction the arrangement, and the

General Road Board, thinking the matter might he settled by the inhabitants themselves by election of trustees, postponed taking any action in the matter until after that election. Judgment for tho plaintiff by consent.

M'Fadgcon v. Same, LSO 7s Gd.—One of the trustees asked his Worship if the Board were liable before the fence was put up. His co-trustees wished him to put the question, because, although the Board had taken possession of the land, the fence was not yet put up. His Worship said this was a case of special contract, and did not come under the provisions of the Fencing Ordinance. Judgment for the plaintiff by consent. Scanlan Brothers v. M‘Murray.—A claim for damage done to a case of plate-glass, LIOO. Mr Macassey for the plaintiff ; Mr Hageitt for the defence. The short facts of the case, as given in evidence, were these :- The defendant is master of the Don Guillermo, and the case of glass was consigned to the plaintiffs. The case was received by them on the Ist of February, and was opened on the IGtli in the presence of Mr Healey by one of the firm. The contents, fourteen squares of plate-glass, wore all broken. Ihe plates had been properly packed. Seven -of the squares were 114 x 42, and seven 114 X 39. The value of the glass was LI 23 8s 7d, and the claim was reduced to LIOO to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. The case was marked—“ Plato glass ; with care ; this side up.” Nothing occurred to the case while in possession of the plafntiff to cause the breakage of the glass. Notice of the breakage was given to Messrs Bright Bros., the agents of tho ship ; first verbally, and next by letter. Mr ilaggitb objected that Bright Brothers and Co. were not necessarily agents for the the master, against whom the action was brought. Mr Macassey contended the agents for tho ship were equally agents for the master. His Worship ruled that such must be the case.

Messrs Bright Brothers replied—“ Send in a claim for tire damage, and it will he investigated.” The claim was sent in, and a clerk of Capt. M'Murray called and examined the case and the contents. The captain said it must have been done in Dunedin —it had not been done on board his ship; but he would call a proper survey. Ho survey was, however, made. There were indentations on the battens outside the case. The battenspvere about two inches thick, and the indentations were from \ to f of an inch thick. There were also other marks which indicated rough usage. (The side of the casewas produced in Court.) Those marks and indentations were not made while in possession of the plaintiffs. Mr Law and Mr Johnson held a survey on behalf of the plaintiffs. In cross-examination, Mr Syanlan said he did not notice the marks of violence on the case before the 16th of February. Lighterage from Port Chalmers was to be paid by the plaintiffs. In re-examination by Mr liacassey, the plaintiff said the glass appeared to have been broken from a centre, and was badly smashed in all directions. Mr Law, of the linn of Henderson, Law, and Co., surveyed the case and its contents on Monday last. From the appearance of the marks he should infer they had been made some time since. The injury to the glass was most severe immediately below the marks on the battens. The cam was a very strong one. He should conclude that the marks were made by some heavy substances coming against the case with force, or nice versa. They appeared to be the results of knocks or pressure. Mr Hart, of the Custom House, proved that heavy iron goods formed part of the vessel’s cargo. Mr Johnson, plumber and glazier, proved the condition of the glass, and described the manner of breakage. The marks had been made by an iron substance. The evidence of the lighterman and wharf carters was taken to show that due care had been taken in transmission from the ship to Seanlan Brothers. The lighterman brought a number of stoves that had been stowed near the cases.

Mr Haggitt contended there was no case to answer. These cases were signed for in Liverpool in the usual form, “ in good order and condition. ” They had been signed for in the same way by the lighterman, and they were delivered in the usual course. There was nothing to show where the breakage occurred. He therefore claimed a nonsuit. Mr Macassey replied and mantained that there was a case to answer, and that the defendant was bound to show that the goods were properly stowed. In rejoinder Mr Haggitt maintained that it was competent for the consignee by application to the Supreme Court to send a commission home lo inquire into the condition of the goods on shipment, but at present there was no evidence to show that the glass was shipped in good order and condition. With regard to the question of improper stowage it is impossible to prove that, as the vessel and every person were gone away. But no case had been made out rendering it necessary to show that the cases were improperly stowed. Judgment deferred. Judgment on Wednesday next.