RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3360, 26 November 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, November 25. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —Richard Money and John Tuck were each fined ss, with the option of 24 hours’ imprisonment; Peter M* Lb-key, 10.R or 48 hours’ imprisonment, with hard labor. Infringement of Bye-laws.— J. Campbell was charged, ou remand, with carrying on business in the city as a carrier without a license from the City Corporation. Aimon said that on the previous occasion he had stated that defendant held a license from the Tuapoka Bench, and resided at Saddle Hill. He had since ascertained that he had formerly resided at that place, but was now living in any spot.—His Worship thought that unless the party was residing or carrying ou business within the limits of the Corporation from which the license was issued, they ought not to grant it. Defendant would be fined 5s and costs. Millar Anderson, for allowing two cows to wander, was mulcted in the sura of 10* and costs ; David Dyer was charged with leaving a dead horse in Forth Place.— Ranger Bain stated that on the Ifitb inst. he found a dead horse, which he ascertained belonged to defendant, lying in Forth place, near the Town Belt. It was swelled up so much that he was frightened it would burst. —Defendant said that it got dead iu the shafts between 6.30 and 7 o’clock ou Saturday last, and that he bad tried to get someone to take it away, but could not get anybody. It was taken away before five o’clock on Monday morning. He called James Kitley, who stated that they were “ knocking about ” the town till near nine o’clock, iu the hopes of getting someone to remove tbe horse, but were not successful. Defendant was fined 2s fid and casts, CIVIL CASE. Lange and Thonemau v. Schmitt, captain of the barque Solid, was a claim of L1()0 damage to a large quantity of tea shipped in the above-named vessel. Mr Stout for plaintiffs, and Mr Stewart for defendant.—Loui< Thoneman, one of the plaintiffs, stated that some goods had oeen shipped in the Solid for their firm. Amongst tfaeae there were forty packages of tea, which appeared to have beui damaged by some dark fluid iu some parts, and by salt water in other parts. All were more or less discolored by the fluid, some being very badly. The cost of the tea here would bo L 240, His opinion was that the damage was caused by dark colonial wine. To Mr Stewart: The tea was insured for total loss only. That was not the cause of the action. - - George H. Gordon, in the the employ of the plaintiff*, had had considerable experience in the shipment of tea. Of that referred to in tbe ship Solid a large quantity seemed to be discolored by a dark sediment. It was also damp in parts. j hese would cause the tea to lose its flavor. Tbe plaintiffs also received colonial wine—red and white—iu casks On examining the casks he found some had been leaking, owing to improper stowage. Was on board the vessel after it had been cleared of the cargo. Saw from below a small leak near the main hatchway. Had tbe discoloration been caused from this leak, it would all have been of one color. To M r Stewart: The boxes were covered by light paper. There was nothing in the covering which would cause the discoloration. Mr Stewart intended going into the case for the defence, although he was at perfect liberty to a.-k for a nonsuit. The weather met with in the passage from Melbourne was the worst they had ever experienced ; in fact, the captain did net expect to see land again. The vessel was classed A 1 at Lloyd’s, and the captain was a thoroughly practical man, having had nineteen \ ears’ experience at sea. While in Melbourne he had received a prize of ten guineas for bringing the best cargo of tea from Foo Chow. It would be shown that it was physically impossible that the damage arose from the wine, owing to the distance that it was from the place where the tea was stowed. There would also be direct evidence to show that the damage was caused by salt water; —Defendant said that the tea was 30ft. or 40ft. away from the wine. The damage to the tea was caused by a leak in the deck. They left Melbourne on the 24th October, and he never saw the like of the weather which they met with from th-t p ace till arrival here. His log would confirm that statement,—Several other witnesses having been examined, judgment was reserved till the next day. Wednesday, November 20. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness.— Henry Kerr was fined ss, or 24 hours ; William Kingston, 20s, or three days ; George Rutherford, 10s, or two days. Unwholesome Meat. Smart M'G'omb was charged by Inspector Goodman with, on the 22nd inst., exposing for sale a quantity of unwholesome meat, to wit beef, in the Octagon market, contrary to section 341 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1867. — Mr E. Cook, for defendant, said that the latter formerly carried ou business as a butcher in Princes street touth, but sold out two or three weeks ago. It appeared that a cask of piculed beef was left on tbe premises, and a man named Thomas Josliug, formerly in his employ, asked defendant if he could have it, who replied that be could do what he liked with it. Josling then got an express -and took the meat to the market, where defendant had' a stall when iu business ; and as his monthly license had not expired the stall was in his name. Josling was selling the meat when the Inspector examined it, and asked whose it was, Josling, doubtless alarmed, replied that it was M‘Comb’s. He (the learned counsel) thought his Worship would see that that statement was a falsehood ; that the meat was not being sold for defendant, and therefore was not his, but Josling’s.—His Worship thought defendant must suffer some penalty for the protection of the public, but as it was the first case under the Act, the small line of 10s and coses would be indicted, instead of the fall penalty of LlO or a mouth’s hard labor. CIVIL CASES. Lange and Thonemau v. Schmidt.—Hia Worship delivered judgment iu this case as follows : Flirty packages were damaged more or less, some of them apparently wetted with seawater, and also with some fluid of a dark color. It is contended that this dark fluid, which lias iu places stained the matting black, must have been something other than sea water, and that, it must have got upon the tea through defendant’s negligence. The suggestion is that the dark fluid was red wine, as some was on board, and some had leaked out of one of the casks. 1 have come to the conclusion, from the evidence, that the wine could not have got to the tea, as it was stowed on a lower level, 30 or 40 feet away from it, with other goods between them. I think the damage is due to the dangers and accidents of seas, excepted in the bill of lading, and lias been done by sea water alone. The two witnesses Gumming and Breiiehley satisfactorily account for the dark murks being in conjunction witli other wetness, which lias discolored the matting but little. Thu absence of color in some of the wetness might be due to the great quantity of water which would pass through the leak in a short period of time, while the ship's decks were “under water” during the worst of the weather she encountered, largely diluting - the coloring matter which would lie formed by the chemical action of the iron bolt, the oak wood, and the sea water. Whereas iu less heavy weather the water would pass through more slowly, and thus get more impregnated and blackened. Or again, as there were two leaks close together, one iu a seam and another by a bolt in the winch bitt, the tea might have been damaged

by clean water through the seam, and by water blackened by the iron bolt through the bolthole. Either hypothesis will, I think, satisfactorily account for the described appearance of the tea. Judgment for the defendant, without costs. C. S. Harvey v. Butler.—There was no appearance of plaintiff in this case, which was dismissed, Mr Harris, for defendant, obtaining full costs for his client. Morse v. Paterson. —Claim, LlO, for trespass and damage done to plaintiff’s property. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Harris for defendant. —H. P. Morse, plaintiff, stated that a nuisance was caused by bad drainage on defendant’s property, and damage was caused by the latter making use of witness’s wall, which was not a party wall. The property was situated at the corner of Queen and Albany streets, and witness produced his certificate of title.—Cross-examined : When witness took possession of the property there was a fence between it and Paterson’s property, but that was taken down and another erected rather within the old line,— Edward Campbell, surveyor, had surveyed plaintiff’s land about a week ago. I 'efendant’s fence, was 2ft, 3ia. on plaintiff’s pro-perty.—Cross-examined : Took the survey from a line of Mr Connell’s in George street. Could not say if that line was correct.—Jas. Gleeson once removed a fence for plaintiff, and erected part of a new one between his and defendant’s properties. Heard defendant's wife once complain of a nuisance from plaintiff’s land, and say that she would annoy plaintiff as much as possible, and that hor husband would “ be the death” of plaintiff.—Defendant, mate of the Wanganui, said he had never heard any complaint about the nuisance from his closet on to plaintiff’s land until He got the summons for this case, nor anything about trespass. Plaintiff sent a man in witness's absence to cut down some gum trees in witness's ground. Cross-examined ; Had heard no complaints from plaintiff until getting the summons. Had seen copies of correspondence produced between his wifs and plaintiff, but had not read it. Witness’s dauglrer read them to him.—J. Webb stated that he sold the respective properties to the plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff had told wituess of tha trespass on his land some time ago. What witness sold was from Queen street to the post of defendant’s fence, as it stood then ; and if plaintiff now claims two or three feet beyond that fenc.i, he claimed more than he was entitled to. Hichard N. Keid, owner of the next house to defendant, gave evidence as to the position of the closet.--Mrs Paterson, wife of defendant, said she had arranged with Mr Webb to purchase the property through the Building Society. When plaintiff bought his section he removed the fence, and put up a new one a little on the side of witness s land. Plaintiff gave witness’s husband permission to put up their fowlhouse, as it would sup. ort hi* fence. Did not use threatening language as one witness had said, but did say that “if the children died from tbe effects" of plaintiff's cesspool, Mr Paterson would almost be the death of him.” Cross-examined ; Could not say when her husband came home about the time she received a complaint about the closet, but it was within a day or two of it.—Judgment was reserved. [Left sitting.]