RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3221, 17 June 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, Junk 16. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Wood v. Macquaid—Ll4 11s 6d, for extras and balance of a contract. Mr Haggitt for defendant. Evidence was given by plaintiff and his witnesses to show that the extras charged for had been done ; while the defendant declared that they were included in the original contract. Judgment for defendant. Turnbull v. Phillips.—His Worship gave judgment herein as follows .‘—Claim, Ll3 15a fid, for one quarter-cask port wine, leaked out or pillaged on board the ship Euterpe, on a voyage from London to Port Chalmers. Judgment in this case was deferred in order that I might consider the point raised for the defence, viz., that the summons being served on Friday afternoon for hearing on Monday morning, the fortyeight hours interval required by the Act was not had, Sunday being a dies non. 1 have looked into the matter, and have satisfied myself that the Sunday should be included in the computation of the forty-eight hours. The bill of lading contains the usual clause, “Not liable for breakage,” &c., but this, o! course, only applies to leakage from causes over which the master and his servants had no control. The cask was shipped full; it was stowed in the lower hold, and before it was broken out it was found to he empty ; it had not been spiled; the hung had not been removed; the cask was sound and tight, ■ had been properly stowed, and the liquor had either leaked out or been tapped at the chime, as was evidenced by the stain. The cask, according to the evidence of M‘Donald, a cooper of forty years’ experience, afloat and ashore, bore marks of having been, tapped at the chime by a method well known amongst the old sailors. It was stowed in the lower hold, encompassed by ocher goods, and could not have been got at during the voyage. lam driven to the conclusion that the oask was pillaged before it was encompassed by the surrounding goods or had been broken out at Port Chalmers. The evidence of the stevedore, Saddler, that he found the chime wet before the cask was broken out, leads me to think that the pillage occurred in Port Chalmers after the surrounding goods had been removed. But in either case, I think tbe ship is answerable. The counsel for the defendant has animadverted, and I think somewhat justly, upon the conduct of the plaintiff in delaying for four or five weeks to take proceedings to enforce his disputed claim, and until he knew the defendant was ready for sea, thereby putting him to the disadvantage of detaining his ship, or foregoing the evidence of his officers and seamen. This, had I any reasonable doubt, or had I thought the evidence thus practically shut out,- might have’altered the complexion of the case, and have induced me to nousuit the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff Ll3 15s fid with costs, less L 3 5s paid into Court. Scott v. J. Maclean.—L3o, value of a horse hired from plaintiff by defendant, which died while in the latter’s possession. Mr Stout for plaintiff; Mr Harris for defendant. The case for the plaintiff, shortly stated, was as follows:—Defendant hired from plaintiff a buggy and pair of horses, but only returned the vehicle and one horse. On arrival at Waikouaiti, Pat Nahill, the groom at the Commercial Hotel there, noticed that one of the animals was unwell. He attended and prescribed for it, and when he saw defendant, told him that it was ill, and not fit to be placed in the buggy. Notwithstanding that admonition, defendant drove the horses away. Mr Parquharson, V.S., was subsequently called in to see the horse, and he found it sinking fast, and perfectly exhausted. It was sufferingfrom hemorrhage of the liver, but it did not necessarily follow that that would be caused by hard driving. For the defence, John Maclean said that he hired the two horses to go to Waikouaiti and back in one day. He was about four hours and a-half going to Waikouaiti, and on reaching there told the groom that he had intended to return that afternoon. When he intended to return, the groom informed him that the horse had been unwell, but that it had got all right again. With Mr James, landlord of the hotel, he saw it in the stable, and both Mr James and the groom then said that it was all right, and that they thought it was able to go to town. Accordingly he started for town, but on reaching the junction noticed that something was wrong, and on arriving at the Water of Leith, sent for the plaintiff and a veterinary surgeon. In answer to Mr Stout, defendant said that had he acted on the groom’s advice, and not trusted to his own examination, he would have got another horse.—G. L. Sise deposed to seeing the defendant at Waikouaiti, and to passing him at blueskin. He was driving at about six miles an hour, and the witness did not observe anything wrong with the horses J. Douglass, V.S., agreed with the evidence of Mr Farquharson. He did not consider four hours and a-half too short a time to go to Waikouaiti—The case was adjourned till Monday, to allow of the attendance of Mr James. Gillam v. Goodman, —L2O, assault. Mr Harris for plaintiff; Mr Stout for defendant. Settled in Court.