RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3151, 26 March 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES.

Shrimski v. Spencer. —Claim, L 7. Mr Stout, for the defendant, pleaded the statute of limitations. The amount was claimed on an 10U, dated in 1864.—The plaintiff said the defendant admitted the debt in Oamaru, about four months ago, and promised to pay it, but the promise was not in writing. He endeavored to ascertain where defendant was, bnt heljicv.ed him to have been out of the country, Ifo for a promissory note, which defendant declined to give, as he had compromised with his editors. — The defendant, on being called, said be had resided in the Middle Island since 1864, and frequently during the time in Dunedin. The defendant denied having promised to pay the debt, and said he did not owe the money, nor had he compromised with hia creditors. —Case dismissed.

Wilson and MTntosh v, Ross (master of the City of Dunedin). —Ciaim, L 7. Mr Stout for the plaintiff; Mr Harris for the defendant. The claim was for damage done to a stove, by which it was broken.—Keith Ramsay, agent for the plaintiffs, said the remaining stoves shipped, with one exception, were received in good condition, One was slightly damaged, and that for which the amount was claimed was broken.—George McQueen, lighter master, took some stoves from the City of Dunedin : all excepting three were in good order. One was broken in the ship’s slings coming over the side, and he would not sign for it. The wind was blowing a S. W. gale, and while the stove was being lowered the vessel rolledsmash-o upon the lighter’s deck. No one on board the lighter touched the stove. The cause of the accident was the ship and lighter lolling in a gale of wind. One hand oft tbp lighter was sufficient to receive goods on board. He told the mate of the vessel it was not a fib day to deliver suoh goods as stoves. The lighter was twentyfour feet wide. Alexander Hastic, carter, acted as Mr Ramsay’s agent, and received the stoves, three of which were broken. Mr Harris, for the defence, said the point was when the liability of the ship ceased and that of the lighter commenced, and that the stove was broken through the negligence of the consignees’ agent. The bill of lading provided that the cargo should be taken from the ship’s tackle at the consignees’ expense. —William Fitzer, chief officer of the City of Dunedin, was superintending the delivery of the cargo at the time the damage occurred. There was a fresh breeze from the S. W., but nothing particular. The statement of M‘Queen was not true. The stove was in good order and condition when it was slung i» tjie tackle. It was properly slung. The master of the lighter was below in the hold assisting two men who were incompetent to the work, and the stove was suspended within the combings of the hatchway for three or four minutes before it was broken. M‘Queen was on deck when it was broken, and sung out to a man on deck, and the stove broke on the lower part of the lighter’s combings through its upper part striking the edge. He could not say what was done in the hold, but George M'Queen was steadying the tackle on deck. The accident might have been avoided had proper care been taken on board the lighter. The stove was lowered in accordance with M ‘Queen’s orders. In cross-ex-amination : He did not observe the vessel roll, nor the lighter. Several stoves had been passed on board the lighter by hand. By the Bench ': At the time when M‘Queen' gave notice to lower,'the stove'was suspended in the hatchway, John Thomson, seaman of the City of Dunedin, was bearing tho stoves over towards the lighter. The wind was blowing pretty strong, but not so hard as ' to prevent the stoves being properly lowered. (The witness described .the accident in the same way (is the previous witness.) The ship was laying oyer, and the tackle was nyt ; long enough tolet jt faWowjuntb the hatch, : and it required bearing off. He never took notice of the ship rolling. He was not lowering fast, but steadily. The stove might be about two feet from the combings. The stoves, were of pot-metal -that is, cast iron. By the Magistrate : By saying tho tackle was not long enough, he might say the yard-arm did not project far enough

over the lighter’s hold to keep the slings quite perpendicular. Captain Boss ; It was not customary for any of the ship’s crew to 1)0 on the lighter's deck at the time. In reply to Mr Stout, he could not say that he had not threatened to sue the lighterman. M‘Queen was recalled by the Magistrate, who denied the statements of the two last witnesses. The Magistrate said the point was when constructive possession was taken. When the receiver gave orders respecting the goods, ho considered possession was taken ; hut on that point the evidence was conflicting. The plaintiff was non-suited. i). Henderson v. W. Lines. - Claim, LL> Is. Mr D. Stewart for the plaintiff; Mr Stout for the defendant. The plaintiff is a lithographer, and the claim was for work done, for which orders were given by defendant’s agent, Mr Cogan. Orders were given for 12,000 labels ; but when the number

was nearly struck off Cogan said he thought 3.000 would be sufficient; on being told, however, that but little reduction could he made, he agreed to take the whole. Other work was done, which w'as specified. A receipt was produced for L 5, on which the words “on account” were struck out, which the witness said were not struck out by him. For the defence, it was stated that Cogan was not Inues’s agent, and that for most of the work claimed for no order had been given. W. Innes, fish curer, said he gave plaintiff no orders for labels, hut he gave Cogan orders in one sense and not in another ; because the orders were given conditionally that the price was first ascertained, and a proof given. He ordered 6,000, but not 12.000 labels, and plaintiff said, as he had received a fair order, he would print some in gold without charging. The receipt was given in full for woik done to that time. Charles Anderson, hawker, was present at a conversation between plaintiff and defendant, in which defendart denied having given orders for 6,000 labels ; referred to Cogan, and the receipt for five pounds.— E. F. Cogan, traveller for the Taapeka Times, took orders for labels and other goods from Innes, gave similar evidence to that of the plaintiff. The price given was for 10 000 labels, with which Innes was satisfied. — His Worship considered the live pounds was in full satisfaction of the account to that time. Six thousand labels to be returned, LI 5s to be paid for envelopes, and a lithographic stone charged, retained by plaintiff. Each party to pay his own costs. I’avelitch v. I hompson.—Claim, LI 7s. The debt was admitted. Judgment by consent for the amount, with c.)s(s. Frederick Luhning and T, H. Snowden were summoned to show cause why they did not satisfy a judgment debt of LG, due to Mr Burt. 3he defendant Luhning did not appear. On examination by the plaintiff, Snowden admitted that he had handed over work to Ferguson and Mitchell, lor which he had received Lls. Mr Burt sdd, the work having been done to defendants' orders, he was prepared to deliver the articles made on receipt of the nloney. The defendant was ordered to pay the money within twenty-four hours, or be committed to gaol for a mouth.

[Left sitting.]