RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2782, 17 January 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. <J. Strode, Esq., R.M.) APPICATION FOK LICENSE, J. S. Wilson made application for a license for a slaughter-yard on Maori ti ill. Mr Harris supported' the application. The granting of the license was opposed by spme of the inhabitants of the district, on the ground that it was a nuisance to the neighborhood, was not required, depreciated the value of property, and was situated on a road line. The evidence of the Inspector of Slaughter-yards for the district was taken, who said that the applicant was very respectable, that the slaughter-yard hud been used for the purpose for twelve years, that it was kept remarkably clean, and that although some few persons in the immediate neighborhood objected, the inhabitants generally were nyt averse to its continuance. He did not know whether it was op a road line or not. The case was adjourned to to morrow, to give his Worship opportunity of consulting the record maps. Civil. C’ASEn. Joslin v, Moore.—-LU IDs. Mr Hodgkins for the defendant. This was a claim by the plaintiff for the value of certain articles asserted to be illegally detained by the defendant. The plaintiff said that the trustees in his estate had given him the articles alleged to be detained, which were on the premises of the defendant, who on being applied to refused to give them up without an order from Joslin’s trustees. That having been obtained and presented to the defendant, he still persisted in retaining them, and in consequence plaintiff had to purchase substitutes for them, and had suffered considerable loss in consequence. Tn cross-examina-tion the plaintiff said he and defendant were partners until about two months ago. He applied for the goods on Thursday last, and issued the summons on Friday. For the defence it was alleged that Moore was under the impression in the first instance that the goods were part of the partnership assets which belonged to himself; that discovering they were not, lie imagined they were assets belonging to Joslin’s trustees; but on receiving a note from Mr Wright, one of the trustees, lie offered at once to restore the goods. In reply to his Worship, the plaintiff said on Monday morning a person named Thompson called from defendant to say plaintiff' could

have the goods, and the dresser purchased, for which ho claimed compensation, was. bought on Tuesday. Judgment for the defendant. His Worship at the same time observed that the defendant had exercised what he considered very praiseworthy caution. Pritchard v. Shand. —Ll4 for balance of four months’ wages alleged to be due. Mr Harris for the defendant. The arrangement had been made by plaintiff on behalf of defendant with Mr Colin Allan, with whom plaintiff engaged for six months as garduer and to make himself generally useful. Ihe complaint of the plaintiff was that he was employed on farm labor instead of gaiden work, and in consequence gave notice and left at the end of the month. Evidence for the defence was given which showed that the agreement was for six months certain. Judgment for the defendant. Algy v. Mary Williams. L 8 Ss for balance of account for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs.

Edwards v. Williams. The defendant was required to explain why he did not pay the amount of a debt of LI Is for which judgment had been given on the 20th September, 1809. The defendant said in consequence of defective sight he had not been able to earn anything for nine months. He had three children living with him who were supported by a youth fourteen years o', age. The defendant’s son was sent for, a boy thirteen years of age, unable to read, and who said he did not understand the nature of an oath. He stated he was receiving 15s a week, and his father bought and sold furniture. The defendant was ordered to pay 5s a week or be imprisoned fourteen days.

Evans v. Fraser, —L 72s 6d. This was a claim for advertising and commission on withdrawal of sale at Waikouaiti. Mr Bathgate for the defence, held that the plaintiff had not sufficient authority to sue, as there was no assignment from the trustees to the plaintiff of the book debts, of which this was one. Plaintiff was nonsuited. Skene and Haast v. Brown.—Mr Brent conducted the case. Evidence was taken in this case for transmission to Invercargill. John Russell, master of the schooner Gora, said he sailed from Port Chalmers to Invercargill with a general cargo, on 10th January. Had good weather and a good passage of thirty hours to the Bluff. He anchored outside the Pilot Station. The weather changed and it blew a gale for thirty hours, when it fell so calm that he could not get under way. On the Monday night the wind freshened from the westward, and the gale blew all Tuesday, the barometer was still falling, the anchor dragged and another was let go. It still blew pa Wednesday, and he determined to run for the Bluff, as he did not think it safe to remain outside. While beating in a squall struck the vessel when in stays ; the tide was running in very strong—about 5 knots —and the vessel struck twice on a sunken rock,; he was therefore .obliged to beach the vessel in Bluff Harbor to save the cargo and crew. He then employed several men, with Captain Thomson, harbor master, and his crew, to discharge the vessel. About twothirds of the cargo was damaged, more or less. The consignees took delivery on paying the general average. Charles Fraser, master mariner for ten or twelve years, would not consider it safe to remain outside the Pilot Station at the Bluff with the wind at west, if he could get inside, as, in case of a change of wind, a heavy sea might rise and endanger the ship. He generally followed that course in similar circumstances. He should have acted as described by Captain Russell.