RESIDENT, MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3572, 4 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT, MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, August 4. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness, Thomas Fogarty was fined 20s or three days’ imprisonment ; Henry Fitzgerald 40s or fourteen days’ ; das. Reilly 10s or three days. Theft.— Alfred Holloway, charged on remand with having stolen a flute of the value of 255, the property of ' harks Stock, was sentenced to thirty days’ imprisonment, with hard labor. An Unregistered Dog.— Dugald Paterson, charged with keeping an unregistered dog above the age of six months, was fined 40s and costs. CIVIL CASES. Outred v. Hyman.—This was an adjourned case, in which the plaintiff, a shoemaker and passenger by the Surat, sued defendant for 10s, the value of implements of trade improperly converted by defendant to his own use.—Mr E. Cook for plaintiff, Mr Harris for defendant.—Mr Harris, in stating the case for the defence, submitted that they had enough of the Surat cases both in this and the Supreme Court. Nearly every person who could be sued had been sued ; and his learned friend (Mr Cook) or the solicitor who instructed him could not invent any more ground by which, with any probable expectation of success, they could bring any more claims. The first lawsuit was against Mr Guthrie, when an injunction case restrained him and Mr Larnach (the only persons then

supposed to be interested in the cargo) from selling part of the luggage was heard. In this they wore unsuccessful and the effect of the injunction was so far injurious to the passengers themselves that the cargo was tor mouths lying in the store sweating in moisture ; and, as Mr Hyman would state, hundreds of pounds’ worth of luggage utterly going to ruin. Then came the case of Uutred v. Begg, heard in this Court, in which it was ruled that the defendant Begg was not liable ; and afterwards in the Supreme Court, Stokes v. Bogg and Another, which was recently disposed of.—Mr Cook: blot disposed of,— Well, if nob ultimately disposed of, he thought he had a perfect right to say that he was justified in saying that he believed no further steps would be taken. How, there was the case of Outred v. Hymau! Defendant was improperly sued, as his copartners should have been sued with him.

Owing to the impertin icity of some members of the profession (he did not incluie hia learned friend), this case ws brought The case was one of considerable importance, and would prove to be a precedent in f iture cases, Shou d the Court dtt rmini against them in the vresent case it would have to be taken to a higher tribunal; for if Mr Hyman was wrong in this ease, he would be wrong in others. Counsel then raised the following objections :—That the master of vessel, Capta n Johnson, had full authority to fell the ship and cargo as she then lay ; that the master did sell; that the sewing machine referred to was not passengers' luggage, but cargo; and consequently passed by the sale of the ship and cargo to Hyman and his cvpirbners.—The case was further adjourned til Thursday, tho 13th instant.