RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3330, 22 October 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

' Wednesday, October 22. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness. Elizabeth Oliver, remanded from yesterday, was discharged, having been in the lock up for twenty-four l ours ; William Monckfordwas fined 10s, or forty-oicht hours’ ; and, for assaulting Constable Brown, 40s, or seven days’; Alexander Cowie, against whom there were eight previous convictions, ss, or twenty-four hours’. Wife Desertion.— Edward Poole was charged with deserting his wife and children. Accused stated that, being unable to obtain work near where he lived, ho had gone to the Woolshed to work on the railway, but with no intention to desert his family. He was earning 8s per day, and was widing to pay any sum desired for their support.—His Worship ordered him to pay 20s a week. Theft.— James Neilson was charged with stealing two dozen hoitles, value 3s fid, from Mr Wilson’s brewery, Rattray street. —Jas. Wilson stated that ho saw accused pass him in Rattray street with an empty sack, and shortly after return from the direction of the brewery with bottles in it. He asked accused where lie got them, and he said at the Halfway Bush. There was a pile of bottles in witness’s yard, and a number equal to those which accused had, appeared to have b en taken away from it.-Sub-Inspector Mallard here stated that if the case were remanded, he could bring a witness who actually saw accused take tho bottles. The case was accordingly adjiurned till Saturday. —Sum Wah was charged with stealing money from a dwelling-house ; Mr Howorth appeared for accused. Catherine Gillon, widow, stated that she was in charge of the Kaikorai toll-bar, and that accused came on the 15th inst, to sell tea. She bought and paid for some tea, and he wont away, but came hack two or three times for change. She afterwards looked at her purse, which was in the front room, and discovered that the money which had been in it—six shillings and two sixpences—was gone. She called accused back, aud charged him with stealing it, and he gave her the money back, and went away saying he was afo •!. Crossexamined : Her daughter was present at the time. She did not shake hands with accused when he went away.—Elizabeth Gillon, daughter of last witness, gave similar evidence, stating that she did not see her mother shako hands with accused. —A little girl, named Mary Biggor, gave evidence to the effect that she saw accused go into Mrs Gillon’s house, and that she told Mrs Gillon, who called him back and he gave her some money.—Sergeant Neill stated that he arrested accused near the Otago Heads, and charged him with the offence. He said his name was Ah Ching, and on searching him he found four penknives in his pockets. -Elizabeth Gillon. recalled, said that she was in the house till the accused came back the fourth time, and on seeing him coming that time she told her mother.—Mr Howorth contended that his client was frightened into paying the money, which was really his own, and that the evidence was too weak to prove any other vi w of the case. —His Worship thought this was a case of strong suspicion, hut that the evidence was not strong enough to conviet accused ; he would therefore bo discharged.

civin CARES.

Borrows v. John Downio.— Claim, L2 3 5, balance, of account for m dical attendance. Plaintiff stated that his charge of L 3 3s for attending defendant’s wife during her confinement was his lowest charge on such occasions. His usual charge was Lt 4s, or to people who were bettor off than ordinary, L 5 ss.—Defendant said that about fourteen months ago his wife engaged plaintiff for L 3 3s to attend her, and that about six weeks before the confinement she sent for plaintiff, but “ it turned out to be a fluke,” and therefore as the child was not born on that occasion plaintiff should not charge for that visit. Plaintiff had also made extra charges which should have boon included in that amount. —In answer to his Worship, plaintiff stated that after a confinement it was his rule to attend both lady and child for eight or nine days without extra charge. Judgment was given for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs. Wahh v. Geary.— Jaim, L 25, for deprivation of use and possession of a certain hose. His Worship delivered judgment in this case, which was heard on Friday last, as follows: Plaintiff is a cab-driver, and in January last be delivered a horse to defendant to agist for twelvg mouths, at Portobello, for a remuneration of 20s, In May, plaintiff told a fellowcabman of the name of Cross, who he thought would be likely to see defendant, if he (defendant) came to town, to tell him if he were bringing in any horses that he would like him to bring in his (plaintiff’s) horse, as it would save him the trouble of going out, Ihe message was delivered, and on about the 17th May the defendant rides in the horse in question, bring jpg in another horse at the same time. He puts the home im at Cotton’s stables, and tells plaintiff he can go apd look at it. Plaintiff goes and finds the horse “ all 'over blood, and Weeding from spur wounds, and feet wprn to the (|gi,ck. ? Patrick Fagan, who was with plaintiff, says : “ The horse was spurred all along the ribs, was badly girth-galled and footsore.” William Priest corroborates this also. Plaintiff says that he saw defendant after, and told him the horse was not fit to Dave), sud that ho (defendant) should put slippers on her at his own expense, as he had abused thcaninja), Defendant denies this, but admits that Cross, as from plain tiff, told him to get the horse shod and to take it bank. Defendant did not put on slippers or get the horse shod, but attempted to get it back without. He was seen in the afternoon on the horse’s back outside the stable spurring it, to make it start ; failing in doing so he got off and led it across the Anderson’s Bay Hoad, and then got on its back again. The defendant says he walked the horse five or six miles of the way hack ; that then it would go no further, so he left it, and returned for it the next morning and put it in Fairbank’s paddock, about a mile farther on the road. There it remained, unfit to be moved for a fortnight or three rveeks, and then it died. Defendant said he was accustomed to horses, and had been brought up amongst them. In the case of Wilson v. Brett, 11, M' and W., 11.3, before Lord Abinger and Barons Parke, Alderson, and Rolfe, it was held —That a person who rides a horse gratuitously at tlie owner’s request is bound to use such skill in the management of the horse as he really possesses ; that the defendant was shown to be a person conversant with horses, and was therefore bound to use such care and skill as a person conversant with horses might reasonably be expected to use, and if lie did not he would be guilty of negligence; that there was no difference between his case and that of a borrower: in the latter the party bargains for the use of competent skill ; in the former the bargaining for competent skill is immaterial, sjupe it appears the defendant has it. This case appears to be as nearly as iwssible in principle the same as the present. I think the defendant, if not before he arrived in Dunedin, could not have failed to know, before he attempted to return, that the horse was exhausted and unfit to travel; and therefore that he is liable to the plaintiff’ for the value of the horse, and this, looking at all the surrounding circumstances, I am not inclined to assess at more than L 1.2. Judgment for plaintiff, Ll2, with costs. Tt was necessary to postpone a funeral in Baltimore recently, because all the carriages in the city had been engaged by visitors to the racecourse.