RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3094, 18 January 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before A, C. Stypde, Esip, R.M.) Murray v. Bradley. —MOO, for balance of account and interest, Mr Stewart for plaintiff ; Mr vi ‘Keay for the defendant. The following evidence was taken, as the witness was about to go out of town Daniel Doyle, knew both plaintiff and defendant. He kept the hotel at the Deep Stream. He had had a conversation about ten weeks ago with Bradley respecting his transactions with Murray, and pn asking him if Murray was going to sue him, he said he thought so, for he owed him a sum of mon-y; but he thought it rather rash to take such proceedings. In another conversation, about three weeks ago, he said he had got his summons in a letter, but nob being properly served, he should take no notice of it. He said he k ne w that he owed money, but nothing Ijko the apiouut sued for. In answer to Mr M ‘Keay, he remeipbcrcd a conversation wdb Bradley on the lOwi her. It was very probable he said, ‘ What s up between you and Murray T Ho said, “ 1 don’t know,” but be would give that answer, no matter »hat question was asked. He now denied owing any money, or any words amounting to a denial. —The fur her hearing of tho ease was adjourned to Friday '* ex^ Warrieay. Sparrow, —Mr Harris Mr the defendant, Mr Hohnes for the plaintiff. The defendant was re-called. He knew F. Seager of Wellington, foreman to Mr Mills, engineer and ironmonger, of that place. He did one job in making a boiler fir a steamer. He knew Kenneth Nasmith, an engineer. He was neither an experienced boiler-maker nor shipbuilder. Neither of them is to be compared with M‘Dougal in practical knowledge of shipbuilding, or boiler-making, or for lengtheping a vessel. ( the witness technically described th,e process of lengthening a vessel,) Hp would not expect to &ep the new frames necessary at the first trial, they might have to be taken down 0U0 ( two, Ol three times. No man could do thewoik without iielp proportioned to the size of the vessel, The time necessary for the work would depend on tho siz-.i of the vessel. A subpoena had been issued f -r the appearance of Allan M Dougal in this case. It was sont by witness’s clerk to Port Chalmers to serve it upon him. He had can ed diligent search to he inane for him sine issuing the subpoena. He on y knew that tSpager made an order tor the Kaugatira from his own Btatejneut ( and di not see it until it was finished. He had known Nasmith for eleven years. He was a general engineer, and understood a httie about it, hiit not thoroughly : he would know less ab«ut building an iron ship, mm must have had more than a genera knowledge of shipbuilding to enable him o pass a correct Opinion on the lightering o a vessel. In reply Mr Harris : Had not been engaged in Connection with shipbuilding for ten or twelve years. It was pot neoes--B,ri to have plans ip order to lengthen a vessel. —The case was further adjourned. Hughes and Harvey v. Stevens. Mr S, Hugh M said he saw the sheet iron that arrived in the E« P. Bouvcri®. He bad seen

sheet iron frequently that had been damaged with sea water. The iron in question was that which he saw, for he never saw any 28 guage iron in the market previously. He saw it in November last, and twice afterwards, in the warehouse. In his judgment the damage was not wholly cm-ed hy sea water. A little might have been lhere, bat the bulk of it was from some other substance. Me tasted it on two occasions. On both it seemed like soda and salt. On ibc j last some week afterwards, they appeared I io contain less of the soda and more of the j salt. The sample produced tasted like the sub dance on the iron. If the damage had been through sea water, it would of necessity have gone tothecentre. Thes'ngnlarfactwas, the centres of the plates were clean, and the edges and ends damaged by the substance j upon them, lie ha 1 never seen so much white j stuff lefc on iron damaged by sea water, and { there was this difference—it might he got rid of in the one case, but not in the other, o rubbing would bring off the damage' on that iron. It could not be covered ; it would come to the surf me again ; blacklead would remove sea-water damage. In a former case, a solution of salt and caustic soda had dropped upon it. and the iron was damaged thioughout In answer to Mr Harris, he could not prove that the iron he spoke of as having often seen, was sea-water damaged. The iron received hy Briscoe and Co. was badly d; maged in the s >me way. —Dr J. G, Black, Professor of Science, of chemistry, and Minetalogy at the University of < dagoHe had made some experiments on some small pieces of iron sent to him by Captain Stevens and Dalgety, Nichols, and Co, There was a white substance encrusting them. Some were also submitted by ! ughes and Harvey. The samples, in all eases, were quite similar. He analysed the white substance qualitatively to ascertain its composition. He found carbonate of soda in one form, and also some chloride, which he took to be able-salt. The table-salt might be obtained fiom sea-wait-r. It was not necessarily fable-salt. 'I here was, besides the chloride, some form of carbonate of soda. >he chloride might have been the product of sea-water shipped during the voyage and the appearance, so far as it was concerned, would be the same, He thought the ion would sustain no direct damage from the carbonate of soda. The damage on the iron produced could not, he , bought, he caused by carbonate of soda. He had made experiments with regaid to the action of suit, soda, and water upon iron. He took four wiue glasses, into oue of which he put salt and caustic toda ; into another carbonate of soda, in that form called washing soda ; into another, he put ordinary water, and into the other, common table .alt. He about half-Hih-d each of those wine glasses with those so utions Then he cleaned a sample of the iron submitted to him, taking off all the mat. Four strips of the iron, each half an inch broad, and an inch and a half long were cut, one of which was placed in.each glass, and left. In about three or four days the strip in the table-salt began to rust; that in fresh water showed signs of rusting, but not much; the other immersed in caustic soda showed no signs of rusting. That was about three weeks ago. Now, that in the table-salt was badly rusted ; that in fresh water, was slightly rusted Toe conclusion be arrived at was that caustic soda, as,well as carbonate of soda, tended to prevent rust on iron instead of promoting it He had examined those portions of the iron submitted to him on which the rust appeared, and those on which the soda was, were the least damaged. Where the white substance was the Ron was undoubtedly freer f.om rust and less damaged. Even the sample produced shewed that soda had a tendency to prevent rust. ( The glasses containing the tests were produced and examined.) Crossexamine by Mr Stewart; The constituents of common salt were the metal sodium and chlorine gas, He did not think the carbonate of soda on the iron could have been produced hy salt water alone under the ordinary circumstances of a sea voyage; there must j have been mmething else than sea water. Common salt was in many cases procured from sea water both in England and Scotland. Common salt did not contain water ; lb was Liglily solid. The constituents of rock salt were identical with those of table salt. In some cases it was pimr ;in others not so pure as table salt. Chemically it produced precisely' the same effects. The white substance contained carbonate of soda and some substance which he judged to be chloride.—Re-examined iy Mr Harris : He thought the carbonate of soda on the iron was washing soda. In his opinion, the accidental spilling cf rock salt or table salt upon the top sheets of the bundles of iron, while in the ship, would not account for the presence of the carbonate of soda found dn them. His worship said, that from the evidence before him, he had come to the conclusion that its weight was in favour of the view taken by the plaintiffs, that the damage was caused by some other substance than sea water, and that that substance must have come to the iron on board the vessel. The opinion of Dr Black was that some foreign substance mu t have caused the damage; therefore, the master was liable for the amount of damage. The amount of damage was not disputed, therefore judgment must go for the amount c aimed. Judgment for the plaintiffs for the sum claimed.