Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, July 24. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

CIVIL CASES. Briscoe and Co. v. Nelson.—Claim, Lls 8a 3d, balance due for goods sold and delivered. Judgment by default for the amount claimed with costs. Buskin v. Hewton.—Claim of L3l, for trespass. Mr Stout for plaintiff, ani Mr Stewart for the defendant.—The plaintiff deposed that bo was the owner of section 24, block VII., Dunedin, and that the defendant was the occupier of the ad joiniug land. The defendant tiespassed on his land in 1873 and 1874 by building a fowlhouse, which encroached on witness’s property; and also placed clay against his stable, which damaged it so far that he could not put his horses in it.—After hearing the evidence for tue defence his Worship considered defendant was a trespasser, but only to a slight extent, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for 40a, with costs.

Uutred v. Hyman.—The plaintiff, John Oufcred, a shoemaker, sued defendant for the sum of L 49 10s, the value of a quantity of goods, including implements of trade, alleged to have been wrongfully converted by defendant to his own use. Mr E Cook for plaintiff, and Mr Harris for defendant.—Mr Cook explained that plaintiff was a passenger by the unfortunate ship Surat, which was wrecked at Gatlin’s River on the morning of the Ist January last. The articles sued for formed portion of his luggage, which was subsequently sold by order of the underwriters, defendant being the purchaser. In arguing the question of abandonment, counsel contended that such a construction could not be put upon the conduct of the passengers by this vessel. He (counsel) was prepared to prove that they had left the ship after she had stranded, by order of the captain and his officers. The vessel and its contents were left in charge of the officers, and as such they were in the position of bailees for the passengers. If the officers were afterwards com pelled to leave the vessel from stress of weather, that would not amount to abandonment. Supposing a heavily-loaded teamster got bogged on an up country road, and he left his load and went away some considerable distance in search of assistance to get it extracted surely no one coming up in the meantime could claim the dray and its contents as having been abandoned. Flaiutiff"s evidence was then taken, after which the further hearing of the case was adjourned.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18740725.2.14

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 3564, 25 July 1874, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
405

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3564, 25 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3564, 25 July 1874, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert