RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3093, 17 January 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C, Strode, Esq., R. M.) Andrew v. Ducksberry-L3O. A claim for damage. Mr Harris for the plaintiff. The defendant is a sub-contractor on the Clutha Railway, and the action was brought bo recover comp nsation for damage done to his land by works in connection with the railway. The case had been po tponed for a fortnight, in order to give opportunity of an ar angement being arrived at. That not being effected, the plaintiff gave evidence of the damage suffered, which he estimated at 1.30 to LAO in labor, besides damage to standing crops, by depositing soil from the tunnel on to the plamt ff’s land. John M‘Clisky, a man in the employ of Messrs B ogdt-n, said be carte l the spoil to the extent of several hnndr<d louU by instruction of Thomas Atknson, ganger to the defendant. Thomas Atkinson said perhaps a out 800 yards were carted on to plaintiff’s laud but he could not say positively. In consequence, the water was 2 feet 6 inches deep on the land of plaintiff, but it could be drained for a 1.5 note —In reply to the Bench, he did not know the boundary of the line, nor where the railway fence would be placed. — A. Thomson, farmer, had surveyed the embankment placed on plaintiff’s land. His measurement was 3,900 cubic aards of earthwork ; the effect was to dam back the water in the creek, and to flood the gully through which it ran. The grass was turned black, and the hill side r- ndered dangerous for cattle. He considered the land damaged seriously by the onbankment. Judgment fur the plaintiff, L3O and csts. Clark v. Barron and others—Lß4, for charter of the Flying quirrel. Mr Edward Cook for the plaintiff; Mr Harris for the defe dant In examination, the p aiutiff s id that about the 7.h J ne he entered into arrangements with r Brodrick to charter the Flymg Squirrel to go to Preset vation Inleh He acted ns trust e for the owners of the vessel, \\ ho are miners. Mr Brodrick ac'cd on behalf of a company, called the Preservation Inlot Coal Company ; Messrs Geo. Elliot and W. O Ball were members ; there were oth rs whose names he did not recollect 'The vessel was used by Mr Brodrick under that charter. The vessel was taken into the employ of the company on or about the 7th June and three months rent of the vessel had been paii at I 60 a month. Mr Ramsay paid the first L3O under arran eraent with Mr El iot that he would repay it; 1 30 more was paid by Mr Brodrick on or about the 10th July. e fter the expiry of the three months, the vessel continued to he woked under that agreement He took the vessel over from the company sometime in December 1872, when one month and twelve days rent were due. He had applied for payment to Mr B odrick, who replied he was unable to pay the amount until he obtained money from the shareholders.—ln reply to Mr Harris, he appointed himself trustee for his child) en seven years ago. Amongst the shareholders, he thought Mr 1 amaoh’s name was mentioned, and also Reid Mackenzie. Mr Brodrick said he had lost a lot of money hy the speculation, he therefore concluded ho was one of the shareholders. He thought Mr Barron’s name was mentioned as a shareholder. He had spoken to Mr Ball about the matter, but not to Mr ; arron. He could not explain why Messrs Barron and Ball were the only members summoned. Mr Brodriok wished him to press for the money, and wished a reduction to be made, when he would collect the money. He had issued a summons against Mr Br idriclc alon for this claim, which was withdrawn. After the summons was issued he learnt Mr Brodrick was away.—The further hearing of the case was adjourned to this day fortnight, January 31, Hughes and Harvey v. Stevens (master of the E. P. Bmverie,)—Lßß, for damage to fifty-three barrels of sheet iron, shipped on boo'd the E. P. B uverie. Mr .He wart for the plaintiff Mr Harris for the defendant. Witnesses were order, d out of Court at re quest of Mr S re wart. Mr Stewart, in stating the case, attributed the damage to the iron through salt having been stowed upon the iron.—G. H. Marsden, f r the plaintiffs, said, on November last, he received by the E. P. Bouverie fifty-three bundles of gauge sheet irmi, the whole of which was m we or less damaged. The defendant gave no information respecting the damage, nor of calling a survey. The edges, both of ends and sides, of the sheets are c ivered with a white cjating and a quantity of ru>t. That iron, if sound, was worth LI20; it could not be obtained here, and was imported for making up special work. Its present value was not more than L3O. He believed the iron was damaged by salt. Balt water would not leave the mar -s upon it. The bundle* were 10 and 14 sheets, and as each was thicker at the ends than in the middle, because of being strapped together h y iron bauds, the bundles were concave, — 40 bundles out of 58 wove c ean in the cen re. i He called the agent’s atte turn to the state of the iron on di-c )vering it was damaged. The defendant called the day after the whole of the iron was delivered, in company with the agent’s clerk and Captain Edwards, M ivine Surveyor at the Port. The defendant said, “That’s damaged hy salt witer,” and turning to Captain Edwards—“ Do ’t y *u think so, captain ?” He (witness) said “ He did not think the damage was caused by salt water, but by soda.” He had tasted it. The captain and Captain Edwards said—-“oh! nw ! it’s salt water,” and both turned away. The captain refused to entc/tam tin claim, and he an*w red most decidedly. He afterwards, saw the agents with the captain, and requested to know if he would settle the claim without taking the case into Curt: the captain said he would not pay a farthing. Ho saw some salt at Dalget.V, Nichols and G'.’s warehouse, and was°told that it had come from the E. P Bouverie. There were 200 bags. Some of the bags were slightly torn, and others had been pa’ died. Three had been patched, and others had been sewn up.—ln reply to Mr Harris, witness said the substance on the iron was soda, as ho had had it analysed. Ho thought it was caustic so a. Some of the damaged iron was sent for analysis to Dr Black, and a piece to the captain, who would not take any with soda upon it. The captain, in Mr Kerr’s—the agent’s clerk presence, did not ask that a piece of the very worst should be given. On reconsidera ion, he believed defendant did ask him fora, iece of the worst, but it \yas after the whole

matter was pointed out. He did not know how the iron had been stored. — Thomas King, lighterman, remembered talcing the iron from the W, P. Bouverie. and delivering it in the same condition to Hughes and Harvey. It was “all” rusty, and looked white in spots. He said to the mate of the ship, when taking it on board. “ Ph ro ssodaon this iron.” He replied, ‘ No; salt. He said nothing about having salt on boa d. He signed for it as “rusty.’— I ,hades Coote, traveller for Kempthorne, Prosser, and Co., said salt was composed of equal parts of sodium and chlorine That was the c inaosition of common rock salt. There were also traces of nunganese. By weight the proportion of cblor ne and sodium were 35'5 to 23, hut the equivalents were equal in number. He had seen some sheet iron in Messrs Hughes and Harvey’s place Judging from appearances it had been damaged by salt, because theie is now on the iron a deposit of soda, which he believed could not have been left in such quantities by ordinary salt water, and he knew of no other compound that would have left soda on the iron. He accounted for the rust by the chlorine separating from the sodium and forming a per-chloride with the iron, which, in a liquid state, was most corosive The sheets seemed to be spotted over—not but principally >-n the edges - with a wliite crystaline powder. The rust and powder wore so closely combined as to be impossible to separate them In answer to Mr Harris, if the damage had been caused by salt water, practically it could not be recognise 1. Underneath the soda a red sca'e came off the iron. '.l here was rust in places when there was no appearance of soda, but the iron having been turned over, the soda might have got rubbed off He d;d not notice any sp Us where soda was lying where the iron was not damaged Carbonate of soda would have very little (ffect upon iron, ft was not what is usually known commercially as carbonate of sola that he found upon the iron. It appeared and tasted something like the sample produced, but what he scrap doff came off more in scales, and was redoer. From the taste he should pronounce it a combination of salt and soda—not carbonate of tod a. Ihe 8) called carbonate of soda of commerce was really bicarbonate of soda. Without analysis be would not undertake to say what combination of sodium the sample was. If a strip of sheet iron were placed in w iter in which two or three drachms ■ f carbonate of soda were dissol ed, he thought it would be s igbtly oxidised. In its dry state c <rbonate pf soda war one of the best preservatives of iron known, but not in its wet state. [Left sitting.]