RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3730, 5 February 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, February 5. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M,) Deonkennhss. Charles Leary was discharged with a caution. Theft. —Emma Lane, charged with stealing a petticoat, the property of Mildred M'Kenzie, was sent to gaol for six months; and John Murphy, charged on remand with stealing a •wag, forffour months. Neglected Children.— Elizabeth, Robert, Agnes, and Jessie Jenkinson were charged with being neglected children. Elizabeth was sent to the Industrial School for four years, Jessie for seven, and the other two for six years. CIVIL CASE. J, F. Healy v. J. Firth.—Plaintiff, a passenger by the Sophia Joachim, from London to Otago, sought to. recover from defendant, master of the ship, the sum of Ll7 10s, as damage# sustained by himself and family through being short provisioned during the voyage.—Mr Stout -appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Harris for defendant, —The case was partly heard yesterday and concluded to-day, several witnesses being examined ©n both sides. —Mr Harris submitted that there was no contract between plaintiff and defendant, and that the case could not come within the meaning of the Passenger’s Act, as section 4 provided that there must be thirty steerage passengers, while in this case there were only thirty-three souls, equal to twenty-eight and a-half statute adults; and he contended that passengers meant adults. —llls Worship decided against Mr Harris en both point*, and said that undoubtedly the ship was short provisioned. She was bound to have sufficient provisions for 150 days’ passage, but after the vessel had been out fifty-two days they ran short. The first time the deficiency in teft was noticed was at the end of December, The deficiency was very marked, extending over a variety of articles. He (his Worship) regretted much that such a caso should have been brought into Court at all—it was not for him to give advice on the point, but he must express bis regret that the Company in this instance of acknowledged deficiency, and, for some unexplained reason, did i2°t make considerable sacrifice to avoid coming intp Court. Plaintiff and his children had suffered damage, and if he {his Worship) thought the deficiency had been wilful he would have given judgment for the full amount, so as to cure this impropriety. He would, however, take a lenient vieV of the matter, and was inclined to believe that it was inadvertence though gross, the provisions being got through before the voyage was half over. Judgment was given for LlO and costs, Lear* to appeal was granted.