RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3514, 28 May 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, May 28. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Frunkenness. — John Mason was discharged with a caution, and Anne Jarvey lined 20s, or in default fourteen days’ imprisonment, with hard labor. The last-named prisoner was further charged with being an habitual drunkard, for which she had previously received three sentences, each of three months. His Worship sent her to ga •! for six months to give her a chance to reform —Prisoner : It will do me no good—indee ’ it will make me ten times worse. Oh, sir, have pity on me.—(Laughter ) he was then removed. Breach of the Masters and Servants Act —Mary Murphy was charged by her master, John Anderson, of the firm of Bendix Halh-nstein, and Co., of the New Zealand Cl»thing Factory, with a breach of her indentures. Mr Stout for complainant, Mr M‘Keay for defendant. - Mr Stout said that the case was only brought on account of the large number of employes his clients had, aud 'hey merely asked for a nominal penalty to show the girls in their employ that they must not leave their work.—Mr M‘Keay contended that under section 3 of the Act any apprentice must be bound either by indenture or assignment. An indenture was a deed, and therefore must be signed, sealed, and delivered. No seal was attached to the deed in question—[Mr Stout : There is a cross.]—and tliere was no testifying witness, therefore it qo'ul I not be a dee’j. £fis next contention was that the father was “the parent or guardian,” and not the mother. The latter could only sign an indenture and have her child bound when the father was dead or not in the place. In this case the father was in town, if the husband gave power to his wife to sign a deed, that consent must be in writing, if the father signed the deed, then it was not essential that the child should sign it.—His Worship promised to consider the points raised. When a case of this kind vys3 brought before the Court it must be fully shown to'his satisfaction sbat the apprentice had some one at his or her elbow—either his parents or guardian— to give advice—and if it was proved that he or she was so advised, then the law would be fully enforced. Young people must be shown obedience.—Mr M‘Keay explained that the reasons were twofold. Eirst, defendant was just budding into womanhood, and the treadle of the machine was peculiarly injurious to the health. Next, there was a contagious disease—measles, he believed-in Mr HaiJeastein’s establishment.— Mr Stout said thedatter statement v/as falpe, , The reasons were simply got up as an excuse.'—The case was adjourned for one week. Breach of the Bakers and Milkers Act.— Ltobert Wilson, baker, was charged by Revenue Officer Lumb with having on the Kith inat. exposed twenty-one loaves of wheaten which were not marked in accordance with the Act with a Roman H. —Mr Lumb explained that the clause of the Act referred to had not till recently been brought into operation. In order that the features might be fully develo .ed, and the facts clear.y eluoi-.afcd, he . ..Id cq.ll b-s <Vorship’s attention to the (i.h section of the Act.— (Laughtei.) He wished to make it plain that there were subterfuges in short bread whereby the pubhe were robbed by the bakers,—Defendant called witnesses.—Mr S;out said that the case bad already been before the Court and ■n stronger evidence the.*: was now adduced, when the Magistrate properly remarked that he must read the Act in a sensible way. 1 ‘He submitted that th” case should be dismissed, as it was the third of the kind, and it was very Hard that the bakers should constantly be made $o leave thif work,—Mr Lumb ;

Professor Black is making an analysis of the flour. If a short adj 'urmnent is made I will prove that it contains both bran and wheat. —Mr Stout objected, as the informant’s case was closed.—The case was dismissed, but without costs, bis Worship, observing that fell© Inspector was doing right in trying to check adult' ration.—Mr Stout said ho wou'd not have applied for costs had not this been the second time the point had been raised. Trivial Assault — Darbing v. Barry was a trumpery, charge of assault. Complainant had called defendant “ a liar” by way of a joke, and defendant retaliated by calling the other “ a thief. - ’ —The case was dismissed, DA! LAM TOWER CASES. Robertson v. Davies (of the Dallam Tower). —Judgment was given in tins case—heard on Tuesday—for plaintiff for L 29 ids 6d, with c sts. The claim consisted or two items : I. The value of eight dozen stout, alleged to have been pilfered on the voyage, L 4 ; and 2. The value of six hbds. pale ale, unsaleable through the casks having been spilled and a p irtion of the concerns taksn out, L 42. under deduction of LI2 3s 6 1, proceeds of a sale by auction after survey. The first item had been disallowed, and judgment given for the second, less the proceeds of s de. Gunn and Koss v. Davies.—This was a claim for LIOO, for damage done to forty-six kegs of nails and other merchandise, shipped in the Dallam Tower Mr Macassey for plaintiff*, Mr Haggitt for defendant.—Mr Macassey explained that this ease was tried on grounds entirely different to those already tried. In the case in question the ship Dallam Tower, becoming disabled, the master thought it wise to put her into the port of Melbourne, where she was repaired, and portion of her cario discharged into stores, and forwarded to Dunedin. Some of her cargo —nails—was so forwarded, bat by mistake, to Briscoe and Co., who were also consignees of rails. The kegs containing the nails consigned to plaintiffs were made of iron, while those for Briscoe and Co. were of wood. If, therefore, proper discretion or judgment had been exercised by the captain, the loss thus occasioned to plaintiff* would not have happened. Two important questions would arise—first, whether the master of the ship was justified in going to Melbourne ; and secondly, whether he was justified in transhipping the goods. The ship having made her way to Melbourne, it might reason ably be expected that she might have made her way to Ducedin. He was free to admit that she was crippled, and it would be uncharitable to expect that it was wrong on the part of the captain to go to Melbourne; they were bound'to assume that he hud acted w : sely in doing so'. The law appeared to be somewhat in an anomalous nate. Where the mister puts into a port of distress he may have the goods forwaided -o the place to which they were intended, in a iother bottom. If the ship puts into a oort of distress, and the master forwards them in another bottom at a higher rate, the consignee was obliged to pay it. In what •ases the master acted as agent for the consignees, he would say broadly and without rear of contradiction that he cannot act for them, seeing that he is connected with them. Plaintiffs could not get their goads without paying extra freight, occas ©tied in shipping them from Melbourne. Judgment reserved.