RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
Friday, May 22, (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES, / Chaplin v. M’Donald.—Claim Ll7, for broach of warranty, i'he evidence was heard last week, and judgment was now given for LlO and costs. A. and T. Burt v. Thomson.—This case, which wag heard on Friday last, was a claim of L2O for breach of apprenticeship by defeudant s son, and L3O ror actual damages sustained by the latter absenting himself from work. For th V defence it was urged that defendant had only acted as guardian, and on his son attaining hia majority, his father was irresponsible for his actions Judgment was given for L2 and costs. J. E. Clark ▼. George Clark,—Claim L4O as wages due for services on the brig Thomas and Henry, and for the illegal detention of plaintiff’s clothes by defendant. His Worship dismissed the case.
Thomson Bros. v. M’Kenzife.— Claim L 45, awarded under a deed of agreement, and L 55 loss and damages sustained through defen. dant doing certain work as a lighterman and ballastman in the harbor, contrary to the trrms of the deed. Defendant had been subpoenaed to produce his books, which he declined to do,—Mr Stout submitted that it was for the Other side to produce the documents. The case was adjourned. R. Wilson and Co., v. Davis.—Claim Ll2 16s, for deficiency in quantity of cargo shipped in i>he Dallam Tower. This was eno of a number of cases against the same defendant, who is captain of that ship Mr Macassey appeared for plaintiffs, Mr Uaggitt for defendant.—Mr Macassey said that plaintiffs had a consignment of 100 cases of brandy by the ship Dallam Tower, which, as is well known, met with very rough weather on her passage. On the goods being landed some of the cases were found to be short of their contents—some having only one, five, six, or eight bottles each. One case also was not landed at all. and part of the claim consisted of surveyors fees. Counsel read a passage from Arnold s “ Marine Insurance,” wherein the law was laid down to the effect that if goods in transitu in a ship were pillaged, the ship was responsible. That if the theft was [accompanied by violence (termed latrocinium) the ship was not responsible, but if it was a simple theft ( furttm ) then the ship was distinctly responsible for the loss. If in the present case it could be shown that the master had, by not exercising due vigilance, suffered the thefc to take place, then (argued counsel) he ought to bear the loss—if this case constituted pilfering in the meaning of the bill of lading —R. Wilson, merchant, gave evidence to the effect that on the goods being landed one case was short, and sixty-seven bottles were miwing from the remainder—the straw envelopes lying in the cases. He could see the cases had been opened. Grass-examined ; The caste showed clearly that they had been opened by some instrument, not by suffering damage. Witness thought sailors might take bottles from different oases, instead of keeping to one till it was empty. It was an unusual thing to have cases of brandy short of the correct number of bottles. The brandy was shipped from Charente to London, and then came direct to New Zealand.—J.T. Mackerras, merchant, said he was appointed by plaintiffs as surveyor of the consignment of brandy. Fifteen cases . were defective, sixty-seven bottles being missing. Witness have never sesn Henessey’s brandy in other cases .than of twelve bottles Broken bottles were not reckoned "at the survey. Cross-examined; The cases appeared as if they bad been opened. ’ He could not remember that there were signs of a crowbar, chisel, or any other tool havmg been used to open the cases, but was at the time thoroughly convinced that they had been forcibly opened. Some had the lids broken, and had been patched up with other rails from tho original ones, which wore wire rails. Re-examined; In 1 some of the cases the straw wrapoera were laid as if they 'contained bottles, and in others the straw was confused.—W. Secular, merchant, also one of the surveyors, spoke to the condition of the cases. Cross-ex-amined : Witness was a consignee by the same vessel, and had made a claim for loss of goods. Gould not say if was Worcester Sauce he lost, but would suspect the sailors of takrpg it if *he had lost any pnder such circumstances as this case showed. If it was castor oil he would think the same,— Thomas Cullen, clerk to plaintiffs, said he asked defendant some weeks ago to inspect the pillaged cases, but he refused, saying he would recognise no claims.— Clifford Williams, master of the as. Jane, and late master of the lighter Faithful, said when in the lighter,, he lightered cargo from the Dallam Tower. She was lying at the lower anchorage, and he landed the goods at the new Jetty street wharf. He received ninety-five cases of the brandy m question, and some of. them were hot full He could tell that by the weight. It was stacked ou the wharf, but could not say where it went afterwards. It was not touched while on board the lighter, nor tampered with by anybody. Cross-exa-mined : Witness did not touch the brandy and would vouch fer his men. The lighter was about eight days coming up that trip, &nd witness w&s Absent only once during that time, for about two hours. The lighter was lying off the fishery a part of the time. Re-examined : At night time aCustom House officer seals up the hatches of lighters containing cargo. When witness left the lighter, the two men were on board, and they were quite sober when he returned.—For the defence, Mr Haggitt contended that plaintiffs must be nonsuited, as the bill of lading set forth that 100 cases were to be delivered to plaintiffs, and the evidence proved that these 100 cases had been delivered. Therefore-, defendant had complied with the terms of th.e bill of lading, and there was nothing more for him to do. Supposing he had been held responsible to deliver 100 cases of anything, it would be quite contrary to the bill of lading. Plaintiffs had not proved and could not that when tho cases were received by defendant they contained WyktyPg ut all—there was no evidence to show' that there jvaa brandy or anything else in them. 'Again,' there was po evidence that they had been pillaged, Which it was necessary to prove. Then the persons who packed the cases might have abstracted sobe of the contents, or it might have been done at the docks, or anywhere else' during the transit. Eiamtilfs have to prove that such had pot been done. His Worship (counsel saict) mua fc suppose defendant and hia sailors to be innocent, until proved guilty, and if that point did not decide the case in defendant’s favor at once, evidence would bo called for the defence,—Mr Macassey considered it a mere waste of time to argue over so obvious a point as that raised, fer by counsel for the defence asking his Worship to pre-suppose the innocence of defendant and his sailors, he made opt that Messrs J. Hennessey and Co, a did business all over the bee of the earth, had bden guilty of fraud by si™* empty pages.-His 1 Wrship considered there was a case to answer, Mr Haggitt was proceeding with the defence when we went to press.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18740522.2.13
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Evening Star, Issue 3509, 22 May 1874, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,249RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3509, 22 May 1874, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.