RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3515, 29 May 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, May 29. (Before J. Bathgate, .Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —Anne Summers, charged with this offence, was dismissed with a caution. CIVIL CASES. Christie v. Wheeler.—This was a fraud summons, defendant being called upon to show cause why he should not pay the sum of L 4 12s Bd, for which judgment had been given again at him in this Court.—The case was adjourned for two months to enable a settlement to be come to. Brown v. Wtir and Brown.—Claim LlO, for trespass and damage, and Lit) for loss occasioned through the {use |of plaintiff’s land by the defendants.—Mr otewart, who appeared for the plaintiff, asked leave to strike out the second count, which was done, when judgment was given for L 5 and costs against Weir on the other count. Outred v. Begg.—Claim .of LIOO. Plaintiff, a passenger by the Surat, sued de'endant, the ship’s agent, for the amount stated as damages though his having, on or about the sth day of J auuary, sold plaintiff s box and its contents, including passenger’s luggage.—Mr Stewart for plaintiff, Mr Macassey for defendant, who said that generally speaking they denied the indebtedness.—Mr Stewart said that one of plaintiffs witnesses—Mr Davie—could not attend before two o’clock.—His Worship : Then do you apply f jr an adjournment?—Mr Macassey objected to any postponement. A. similar case had previously bem before the Court, and this was an entirely groundless proceeding. (Mr Stewart : Oh, no.) It was a mere waste of time to propose going into details. —Mr Stewart said he would have Mr Davie called upon his subpoena, aud if his Worship wished he might issue au attachment against him.—Mr Macassey agreed to this course.— Mr Stewart then stated the case. He said that his Worship would recollect a case somewhat similar being brought before him some time ago. At that time there was a conflict of evidence as to whether tbe sale of the luggage was autlio ised by Mr Begg, and he agreed to accept a nonsuit. He would now b) able to prove incontrovertible that Mr Begg did authorise the sale, therefore he was liable to plaintiff for d mages. On the former occasion it j was shown that the sale of the ship "and cargo ti-ok place—an advertisement, saying that they were to be sold, being produced—and he would prove by evidence that it took place at Mr Begg’s instigation. One of the passengers went to the sale, and protested in the interests of the passengers against the sale of the luggage—the question then being raised for the first time whether the luggage was to be sold. Mr Begg then gave instructions to sell tbe ship and everything in her. He (Mr Stewart) apprehended that if the declaration were made by the defendant that the luggage was to form part of the sale, audfhe sanctioned either directly or indirectly the sale of the luggage as part of the cargo, then he was held responsible for any specific damages thus occasioned. He was instructed that the proceeds of the sale jwere handed to Begg. Ho was clearly acting as a principal, aud the law of tort did not make a |distinction between a principal and an agent, if Mr Begg, either directly or indirectly, caused injury to plaintiff, then he (counsel) submitted that he was responsible.—John Davie, auctioneer, carrying on business in Dunedin, said his firm sold the wrack offlthe Surat under written instructions from Captain Johnson, for whom Mr Begg, who was present at the sale, acted as agent. Before the sale a verbal protest was entered by a gentleman in the room against the sale of the passengers’ luggage. —Mr Stewart : Was the luggage sold?—Mr Macassey objected. This was a question of law. Witness might produce the conditions of sale, but the effect of what was done could not be stated. They were bound by what appeared in writing and not by a verbal matter.—Witness continued: When the protest was made he turned to the captain and asked for instructions, which he finally got —to sell everything. Mr Elliott, Captain Johnson, and defendant were together, but he was not prepared to say who gave the instructions. He saw defendant before the sale, and he produced au authority from the captain to sell. Mr Begg got the money —the proceeds of the sale, it was stated that everything was sold. By Mr Macassey : He understood that Mr Begg was agent for the New Zealand Shipping Company. At the time of the sale he looked upon defendant as the agent of the Company who were agents for the Surat. He could not form au opinion whether the sale of the luggage made any appreciable difference in the price fetched. He never regarded Mr Beg* as the sole principal. Regarded the New Zealand Shipping Company, Captain Johnson, and the underwriters, represented by G. W. Elliott, as such. By Mr Stewart: So far as the auctioneers were concerned, Mr Elliott and the defendant took the most prominent part. —John Outred, the plaintiff, said he left the Surat on January 1. At that time the goods mentioned in the plaint were on board and were of the respective values mentioned. The only things he hj d seen since were an album aud a sewing machine, which were in a store m Dunedin.-By Mr Macassey: The album was utterly useless, but he could not state in what condition the machine was, as it was m a case. He and his family came out as Government immigrants, and got their passage tickets and paid for them at the Agent-Gene-ral s chambers, and not from the ship’s.avents. —John Calverry deposed that on Tuesday, 2nd March, he called at Mr Begg’s office and asked him if the Surat and luggage were sold. Mr Begg replied that they were. Witness then asked him who authorised him to sell the luggage. Mr Begg replied that Gaptarn Johnson had done so. In answer to witness Mr Begg further stated that he had received the whole proceeds of the sale, and had forwarded thc-m to England.—James fountain gave similar evidence.—Richard Booth deposed he was present at the sale of the vessel, and protested on behalf of himself and lellow-passengers against their luggage being sold.—James Haig said that he was in charge of the passengers’ luggage which came from the Surat. He was in the employ of the Harbor Company.—Thomas W. Woodcock said that at the sale the instructions were to sell the ship, gear, passengers’ luggage, and everything as she stands. Mr Booth’s objection was noted This closed the plaintiff’s case.—Mr Macassey submitted that defendant was sued here in his personal capacity and not as agent of the Shipping Company. He had thought of raising a nonsuit point, especially after Mr ,- L)a , vie 8 evidence, but he had determined to make some remarks with regard to the legal points raised, and then call Mr Begg. the defendant Before doing so, however, he would make some observation with regard to the action. It was that plaintiff was very ill-advised m bringing this case, as it was with precisely similar facts to the previous one, after the latter being dismissed. Mr Begg had no more to do with the sale (counsel said) than his Worship had. Of course he was sneaking of defendant-in

is individual capacity, and not as a representative of the New Zealand Shipping Go. Messrs Guthrie and Larnach, who bought the goods the salvors—had a perfect right to hold the goods till they were compensated ror the loss in recovering them. Action was taken against those gentlemen for the recovery of the goods, and they were compensated for their loss. Now if an action were again taken against them, it would »e shown that the Government was goaded

on by the passengers to make some arrange* ments, and that these arrangements were made at the instigation of the passengers them* selves. Therefore it was obvious that no proceedings would be taken against them. Why, he asked, was not an action brought against the master of the ship, as he was clearly the person who authorised the sale ? No one but the master, in the absence of the owner, could have a sale of the ship. Mr Begg could not have done so, any more than he (Mr Maeassey) could—the master was the moving spirit, and not the defendant. They had allowed the captain to slip through their fingers. He asked plaintiff what made him single out “ Mr Alex. (1 Begg, of High, street, Dunedin,” instead of the company. It was simply oue of those tricks resorted to by the passengers for the recognition of their claims, and had no physical foundation. A more extraordinary document he questioned whether there was ever seen than the one before the Bjnch. It was so wonderfully manipulated that all the items amounted exactly to Lloo—the exact jurisdiction of the Court. Counsel then related an anecdote of a solicitor who, in going round the West toast, dropped bis valise, He claimed in a Court where the jurisdiction was LSO for that amount, stat* ing that such was his loss, aud as the valise contained some diamonds and other valuables, judgment was given for the amount. Immediately after he stated that had the Court had jurisdiction for L2OO, he would have claimed that amount. —( aughter.) The claim, he submitted, was open to considerable suspicion. Did Mr Begg, he asked, personally in any way interfere with the sale of plaintiff’s property? and supposing he did, did that do any injury to the plaintiff’s property?— Alexander 0. Begg, agent of the New Zealand Shipping Company, sa’d the Surat was only chartered by them on the trip in question. At the sale ot the ship, on a question being put as to the sale of the luggage, Capt. Johnson told Mr Davie to sell in accordance with the instructions he received. The advertisement being again read, Mr Booth protested against the passengers’ luggage being sold. Witness went to the sale on behalf of the Shipping Company. He had no personal connection with the sale, only being concerned on behalf of the Company.—Mr Davie, re-ealled, said he had a distinct recollection of reading out Captain Johnson’s authority for the sale. He produced a memo, of purchase, which stated “wreck aud cargo,” there being no mention of luggage.—Hia Worship reserved judgment. J ® [Left sitting,]