RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3062, 11 December 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) PAWNJiKOK.EIt’s LJCE-NSK. B. Marks’ application for a pawnbroker’s license, granted. Civil Cases. Warner v. Sparrow.—For the taking of evidence, adjourned until Friday next. Proudfont v. Hassell.—Claim for kerbing. Mr Stewart for plaintiff; Mr Barton for defendant. This ease had been heard before and a decision given, but was brought again into Court by Mr Stewart, on tbe ground that he had since the last hearing discovered a decision in Thomson v. Apworth, which reversed the judgment given in the case of Tidswell and Whitworth, on which the last judgment was founded.—Mr Barton, in a few remarks said that although the oa«e was somewhat different from Tidswell and Whitworth, Willes, J., in his remarks expressly stated that the statute did not affect the contract between landlord and tenant, on which the last decision of the Court was based.—Mr Stewart replied, urging tbe analogy between the English Statute and the Provincial Ordinance. His Worship said he had given considerable attention to the matter, on account of the bearing of tbe (juestion on a large number of similar cases, and had arrived at the same conclusion as he arrived at on 14th October. Me could oply give that decision substantially. Them must be judgment for the defendant.—Mr Stewart asked that the judgment of the 14th October might be considered as delivered in the case.—-Mr Barton suggested the addition, “after having heard the case of Thomson v. Apworth argued.”— This wad agreed to.—Mr Stewart said he would appeal, and leave was granted. Crafts v. Hart. —Mr W. W. Wilson applied for an adjournment until next Monday, in consequence of two witnesses, who bad been subpoenaed, having to sail in the Stprm Bird, being seamen on board that vessel, and would net return before Monday. Mr Harris, on behalf of plaintiff, offered no objection Adjourned until Monday next. Marshall and Copeland v. Macpherson.— Ul4 17s, the amount of a dishonored acceptance. Judgment by default fftp the plaiuBriscoe v. E. W- Adam.—L3 Ifis, for loss and damage to four “ jaw boxes” which he had agreed to deliver in good condition. Mr Stewart for the plaintiff; Mr Barton, instructed by Mr Turton, for the defendant. Mr Barton asked that it might be treated as a specimen case, with leave to appeal, as it was really intended to settle an important right. As po appeal could be allowed oq

claims mlder five pounds, it was agreed to amend the plaint to six pounds, Mr Barton, for the defendant, said Ihere was no such agreement as was alleged. Mr Stewart said the defendant was master of the Peter Denny, who engaged to convey a quantity of merchandise, including 16 bundles of cast ings to he delivered in like good order and condition. By the terms of the bill of lading, there were the usual exceptions to liability, and in the margin a memorandum stating, “ not accountable for leaking of oil or breakage of castings.'’’ Mr Stewart conlomb-cl tb >t on two grounds tie would be entitled to recover; Ist, on the ground of negligence, and ‘2nd, because the jaw boxes wore not delivered in good order as contracted for.— Charles Smith, lighterman, recollected delivering the six boxes about a mouth ago. K< *ur of them were broken. He saw them tin’s morning in the Jetty shed, where they were lying in the same state as when he received them from the Peter Denny. He got some broken pieces, but be did not think he got sufficient to make the boxes complete, lie delivered all the pieces he received. In cross-examination the witness said he did not attempt to ascertain whether the pieces were correct or not; but any one could see the pieces would not complete the whole if put together. Mr M‘Neil, about four weeks since, had his attention called to a quantity of broken castings from the Peter Denny He went to examine them, and would not take delivery, so they were put into the Jetty shed. They were yesterday in the same condition as when landed. The one lea-t damaged ha i a piece knock 'd out of the tlauge. He could not find the piece. The second damaged one had a piece knocked out of the end, as large as a man’s hj uni. He could not find the piece. We thought it must have been struck with a hammer or some pointed instrument to produce the fracture. The third was broken m a similar manner at one end, and the oth.r end was thrust bodily out. The broken piece was not found. The fourth box was knocked to pieces. Many fragments were wanting. If the boxes had been properly stowed they would have borne any weight, nor could they hare been broken without some extraordinary violence. They were now only worth the price of old iron. The wholesale cost was 1.6 Is 61 in their present condition they would realise about ]2s. They could be mended, but he doubted whether it would be worth the trouble. In cross-examination : He declined to delivery, but if his Worship decided against the plaintiff the goods would be taken and sold as old iron. On the jetty be tried to fit them together, but could not. Joseph Hamb’eton, engineer, inspected some jaw boxes at Mr M‘Neil's request, the day before yesterday. i hree were broken to pieces. Had they been properly stowed and due care taken they would not have been broken.— John M'Neil had handled many jaw boxes, and considered that those must have been improperly stowed to load to their being broken English grates were imported betted packed than Scotch. They were packed in crates. It was not a common thing for jaw boxes to arrive broken.—Mr Barton, for the defence, hold that these goods were peculiarly liable to breakage, and that even change of climate, combin d with the motion of the ship, might break them. Formerly they were exported in cases, and breakages were frequent, and exporters obtained such heavy damages that at length it was necessary, for the protection of shipowners, to add clauses to the bill of lading holding them harmless, excepting in cases of carelessness, and these conditions of contract were recognised by the courts of law at Horae. But there had been no proof of gross negligence.—G. VV, Adams, the defendant, master of the Peter Denny, only saw the boxes once, and that was in the store. Had been master of a ship for eleven years. Ha-tings were very delicate articles. He did not recollect having any jaw boxes broken, but had had many castings broken. The ship was properly stowed. It was possible a camp ©ven might be more easily broken than a jaw box. —John Stevenson, chief officer of the Peter Denny, said the boxes were stowed between the compass and the quarter batch in the lower ho d. .Nothing but dunnage was on the boxes, and nothing on the hatch. He could see no fault in the stowage. Jaw boxes could very easily be broken, and required careful handling. They were very slightly made. The working of the ship might break them. All the pieces that could be found were delivered. Stoves and grates were near the jaw boxes. John Metcalf, seaman on board the Peter Denny was present when the jaw boxes were delivered. 'I hey were stowed on the top of everything and properly secured with dunnage wood, so that they could not shift. He had seen many jaw boxes broken even when properly stowed. The working of the ship in stress of weather might cause them to break, and the ship encountered heavy weather coming out. Arthur Heaviside, seaman on board the Peter Denny thought the boxes wore stowed as well as possible. The stoves were aft. His Worship reserved judgment.