RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., K.M.) abusive language. Beadle v. Buckley.—The defendant was charged, on the information of the complainant, with using abusive language, calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. The language complained of was that the defendant complimented the complainant by calling him a “ d d fool,” or a “ d-—d rogue,” or both. The defendant was fined 10s and costs. Civil Cases. J. Cargill v. Russell —L6O. This was a claim for the value of a horse alleged to have been killed through the carelessness of the defendant. Mr Harris for the plaintiff; Mr Stout for the defendant. Donald M'Crae, groom to the plaintiff, said that he was riding the horse which was killed in the direction of Caversham on the 7th October last, and that nearly in the Cutting he met an express waggon. When first it came in sight he was riding at a trot, at a “commanding pace ” in the Cutting in Princes street, and had pulled up his horse to a walk, when immediately before meeting, the driver of tbe express waggon made a turn towards him. He did not observe any danger in tbe movement, hut on his hnrse plunging he found a shaft had struck his horse on the near sid-, and entered him immediately below'the hipbone. [By a plan presented to the witness, it appeared that about opposite the City Buffet a dray or spring-cart was on the east side of Princes street, and another a little nearer the Octagon in the west. The express waggon was passing onward towards the Octagon, and the accident happened in the space between the two vehicles.] He was riding nearer to the oft’ than the near side, and Russell’s express was near tbe crown of the road, on the off side of the road. The horse that was killed was a beautiful animal, nearly seventeen hands high, a good saddle and carriage hors ■, and very quiet and tractable. In cross - examination, the »aid the express waggon was being driven at a walk ng pare, and the hose he iole was walking, and the shaft penetrated nearly a foot into the horse. Mr Cargill had not found fault with him for the
loss of the horse. John Matheson, express proprietor, was walking southward past the Criterion Hotel on the same side of the street, and saw M'Crae tr t past him. He noticed M ‘Crae pull up the horse into a walk as there was a difficulty in passing some vehicles. He was on the opposite side of the street, and made towards the other side to get an opening, and while doing so, Russel’s express was driven across, and jthe shaft struck the horse. The horseman was on the wrong side : the driver of the express never pulled up until he was compelled by the shaft entering the horse. If the horse had been made to stand he wou d have got through on his proper side. The express was half-way or three-quarters across the road when the collision took place. He was passing Parke and Curie’s when the horse ceased trotting, about opposite Fargie’s Store. He immediately ran towards it. Robert Kirk, when the accident happened, was standing opposite to it, but did not see it take place. E. Bale saw the accident: the saddle horse appeared to be going straight, and the head of the horse in the express waggon pointing to the City Buffet. When the accident took place the express driver was gathering up his reins. If he had had his horse well in hand, in bis judgment the collision need riot have taken place. He thought when the saddle horse was struck he was going at a jog trot. John Thomson, carter, gave evidence that the driver of the express became so much confused on the accident taken place that he dropped one of his reins apparently not knowing what to do, and in his own mind witness concluded that he was not safe. to be trusted with a hor. e, E, H. Ha t described the position of the exgi ess van and saddle horse. The latter was wounded in the flank. T. C. Reid saw the horse ridden at a trot past Moray place. He saw the collision, and his impression was that the express was near the centre of the road, with the horse’s head towards the right-hand side of the street. J. N. Russell, the defendant, saw Thomas Newton who was driving the express which caused the accident. E. Brown kuew the horse, which he considered worth LSO, but would not take that sum if he had use for such an animal.
i?’or the defence the following evidence was given:— William Lind, drayman to Hogg, and Hutton, stated that he was driving his horse and dray down the Cutting on the day in question. He saw the express and the horseman. He was on the left-hand side of the road. There was room for the horseman to have passe I the express on witness’s side of the road. If he had been on horseback he could have done so. There was ho v< hide in the way. Almost directly afterwatds, seeing the people looking round, witness turned round and saw the horse and express stuck together, as it were. By Mr Harris : Witness had got as far as nearly opposite Calvert and Campbell’s when he turned round. He thought the express had not changed its position in the road from that when he first saw it. By Mr Stout: If the expressman had turned his horse’s head towards the City Buffet side of the street, there would have been more room for the horseman to pass. Thomas Newton, driver of the express which collided with the horse, detailed the circumstanc s of the collision. He could not have avoided the accident, because the horseman came upon him unawares. He fiist put his horse’s head a little to the left or the City Buffet side, thinking the horse-; mau would have passed on his right side, the right side of the street. Seeing that he was endeavouring to go between the express and a dray, backed on to the footpath on the left hand side, he inclined his horse’s head to the right. By Mr Harris : The horseman came up at a pace between a canter and a gallop. Witness never varied a foot in his track in coming up the hill. Some ten other witnesses were called. Eight of them stated that there was not room between the express and the dray on the left side of the street for the horseman to pass —one emphatically stated it was unwise for anyone to have attempted to have done so—while there was any quantity of room on the horseman’s right side. Mr Mackay was the only one who dissented from this view, but he attributed the accident to a mistake on the part of the horseman. His Worship, in giving judgment, said that the evidence clearly revealed the fact that the rider of the horse (M'Crae) was nob in the position he should have been, under the circumstances, when the accident occurred. He {Mr Strode) felt bound to say that the horseman’s false position was the cause of the accident; and but for it he believed the acc dent would never have occurred. The evidence showed such negligence on the part of the plaintiffs representative as to dissentitle him to recover. Judgment for defendant.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18711123.2.9
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2736, 23 November 1871, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,254RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2736, 23 November 1871, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.