RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3516, 1 June 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, June 1. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., E.M.)

Drunkenness. —Francis Henderson, John ’’arsh, Thomas Connelly, George O’Brien, John H’Keef, and John Wynne were each fined ss, with the option of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment; Rodert Nelson, who pleaded hard to get off as he had been in the lock-up since three o’clock on Saturday, 10s or three days’. Strange Charge gf Theft.— John Wynne was then further charged, on the information of Constable Rooney, with stealing an umbrella, the property of Wm. H. Briscoe —Prosecutor said that he stopped at the Criterion Hotel, He went out about six o’clock last night for a walk to Caversham. and met prisoner (whom he had never seen before), and had some drink with him Witness could not say whether they were drunk He might have asked prisoner to carry his umbrella ;in fact, he thought he did. He left him to speak to some persons, and on going back found prisoner had gone away with the umbrella, and he did not see him again.—Pii oner said that pros e ilor was so drunk that he was unable to stand, and gave him his umbrella to hold. He then went away to speak to two ladies, and he (priso ner) lost sii:ht of him.—Sub-Inspector Mallard said_ that it appeared that there was a witness in Court who could corroborate prisoner’s statement—that the latter was authorised by the prorecutor to take the umbrella.—His Worship : I was going to say that under the circums ancea I could not convict. If 1 had a doubt I am bound to give prisoner the benefit of it. (Addressing the accused)— You are found not guilty and are discharged. civil cases. M'Oracken y. Burton.—Claim L 3, for board and lodging ; and Same v. Brown, for a like amount. —Judgment was given by default in these cases, with costs. D. Rossv. V. Pyke.—Mr E, Cook, for plaintiff, applied for a re-hearing in this case, in which judgment had been given for defen. dant, Mr Haggitt, opposed the re-hearing, which, after argument, was refused. Edmond v. Davies.—Judgment was given herein as follows : The plaint in this action contains three items* 1. EJeven kegs nails short delivered, L 23 2s. 2. An anchor, 18s fid. 3. Salvage on seventeen kegs nails, L 6 7s Id. The effects of the storm encountered by the defendant in the Dallam Tower, in which the goods were carried, sufficiently accounts for part of the wooden casks in which the nails were packed being damaged and part of the contents being thrown out. But no part of the contents was thrown overboard and goods not of a perishable nature ought to he accounted for. As a matter of fact, a considerable quantity of nails belonging to different owners have been packed into casks and bags without any address, and there is & considerable quantity still on board, the ownership of which is also undistinguishable. The defendant is unable, owing to the mixing together of the nails, to deliver them to their separate owners, consignees have now become joint owners of the mixture, it having been made by accident. The question arises: upon whom does the responsibility rest of dealing with the joint owners to get delivery and distribution of the joint property ? It cannot surely rest upon the plaintiff, as he has no means of knowing who are his co-owners. The master, as carrier, is responsible for the delivery of the goods entrusted to his custody; and, in the' case of - joint ownership, be knows from bis manifest ! with whom he has to deal, If he retain these

goods without making an effort to obtain an adjustment, he is, in my opinion, in the wrong and must be held answerable. It is with regret I arrive at this conclusion,- as I cannot sufficiently commend the skill and heroism displayed by the defendant and his crew in their extraordinary efforts to bring the ship successfully into port; but I am constrained to add that during the six months at Melbourne, and nearly three mouths in the port here, the defendant has been negligent in duly attending to the interests of the consignees. He has refused on all occasions to attend examinations of damaged cargo, and his chief consideration has apparently been to avoid, in any way, all claims against himself as master of the ship. In the present case nothing has been attempted by him in the way of delivery to or distribution among the joint owners. The plaintiff stated In evidence that the defendant never looked near, although written to. No answer to the letter was received. I can see no reason in the circumstances to relieve the defendant of his liability. If the goods arc saleable, it was bis duty to see the delivery. If from peril of the sea they are so damaged as to be useless, the obligation was on the defendant to establish that fact, to enable the joint-owners to recover from total loss. This be has not done, and it is not equitable that the consignee should suffer from his neglect. Judgment will, therefore, be for the plaintiff for the amount sued for, less 18s 6d paid into Court, and L2 2s, the value of one keg found since the action was raised. Judgment for L 27 7s Id, in addition to the amount paid in, with costs. Gunn and Ross v. Davies (Captain of the PallamTower) —His Worship now proceeded to give judgment in this case, heard on Friday last, as follows : This action is raised to recover the value of forty-six kegs of nails, ex Dallam Tower, short delivered. Out of eighty kegs specified in the bill of lading, only thirty-four have been delivered. The deficiency has not been accounted for by peril of the sea ; nor has the master relieved himself of the responsibility by establishing that the loss comes within any of the exceptions contained in the hill of lading. I have no doubt that the cause of the deficiency is the delivery by the defendant of the goods to the wrong person. When the vessel arrived in Melbourne to refit, Messrs Briscoe and Co. applied for delivery of their consignments there, and they afterwards forwarded them to their house in Dunedin in another bottom. At the request of the parties I have examined a number of iron drums in the warehouse in Dunedin belonging to Messrs Briscoe and Co., which were pointed out as part of the goods ex Dallam lower forwarded by that firm from Melbourne. I find that these drums had some time before shipment in England been addressed thus: A B under S, with a current number ; that subsequently to their being so marked, they had been again addressed with the plaintiff’s brand, as specified in the Bill of lading GDR under &, with the current numbers stated in the bill of lading as consigned to the plaintiffs. I have no doubt the latter address, which is painted over the former, was the latest put on the drums. In several instances there is indistinctness, the result of the rubbing in transit, but in others there is_ no difficulty in coming to a decided opinion in the matter. This view is confirmed by the fact that the defendant has in his Melbourne manifest endeavored to account for the missing kegs, by including forty-two wooden kegs addressed AB, and which do not hear the plaintiff’s brand at all. Some of these I have examined at the jetty shed, and am satisfied they form part of Briscoe and Co.’s consignment, and do not belong to the plaintiffs at all. 1 have therefore no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff’s goods have been by mistake delivered to the wrong person. An innocent mistake does not exempt the master as a carrier from his liabilities to deliver goods carried by him to the proper consignee. The value of the missing kegs is L 97 6s. The chief part of the remainder of the goods specified in the plaint being perishable, and having been packed in \vooden casks which gave way apparently through' the working of the cargo during stress of weather, I am of opinion that the loss is covered by the excepted risk of peril of the sea, although there is a doubt in regard to the two dozen or brass lochs. There was no jettison, and therefore goods of that kind should have been found when the ship was discharged of its cargo, if due care had been displayed in attending to the interests of the consignees. In the circumstances, however, I give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Judgment for the plaintiff for L 97 6s, with costs.