RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4191, 2 August 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, August 2. [Before T. A. Mansford, Beg., R.M.] Judgment was given for,pbdritafeby feult m the following :-A‘ Nicholson v. Brown, claim L9X|&ffi ne v* fyoHs, « 3 19s; Baxter v. MurnhijPpi?* 17# lid; Beaver Bros. v. John"MaSheSM, '£i|* 13s Id. ‘ " 1

Robert Wilson v. James Kennedy.—This was an action to recover LBB, for sugar aUegcd to have been damaged through negligence m conveyance from Newcastle by the Easby, of which defendant was the master. ; pm,rkm£ -esA -Wedneaday, last, and his Worship Uiqw gave jndtf-' ment as followsln *U contracts for • . conveyance of goods by sea, there is and staunch, and in every way fi£ted'to encounter the ordinary'nerds of the voyage} a clause being usually inserted in bills ■of lading protecting the ship from'all liability< m respect of damages arising from theactof God, fire, Leakage, r breakages, and all damages and accidents of the sea. Altera can be no doubt thst the steamship Kasby enconnteredmost the only question,.that arises is,. Whether proper precautions were taken before the 3 particular voyage which gives rise to the present action to render her Seaworthy and tO entitle the master to chain the benefit tor' thq exceptions in the bill of lading. The. claim appears to be* divisible into two parts,' ®achrMuiring separate cqnsideretioh. The bid of ladJng comprises a shiphent of twenty* five, tons of sugar, teU tons haying been

oquare oi tne atcer-natcn, and fifteen tons in- the intermediate hold below the second cabin Mid in -the £mnks of the second cabin tett tons in the .square bf the after-hatch could not, according ioi ißVl ®|bce, have n been better 'stowed, having been Snrtbunded ‘ with hn itdn~ trunk-way’ or casihg; With" two tanAhlins batch, .one, .of wap, .pejrfectly new and the other good 'oMer.these taroaulins 'were washed, adrift and > before; they, bould be s&iuiedta : . torge quahuty of ■ wifer ; van below - qainaged the <&tgq../ No oMiharjr brb-' caution could have prevented this,^sp Jhatjl' opimon that this portion of- the claims by tha exfeeptioii in tHe bill V brainy. This,- therefore,- 1 disposes ‘of turd-'' fifths of the pTaihtiffir claim. With rh<: ference to the fifteen tons the circumstances .are materially different. The portion of-the-sugar was stowed in ; the intermediate hold, and - was damaged from sea-water by the decks which went down the sea-and through" the i combings. That necessity existed, for caulking the decks .cannot be disputed/ The master and; the chiefofficer both admit this to a great extent, the former stating that he may have said that the vessel should; have been caulked; before this tnp; and that from his knowledge of the vegaeh he was of opinion that it would ? have been desirable "to have had her " recaulked, while, the latter stated that part of the decks had been caulked before leaving' Sydney, but that there was not time to nmsb. Evidence of this character from such asoureeconviim®^ne^otrTHilyi*^t*^ desirable but necessary for the decks to bC'' re-caulked,- mid that by not taking this ordinary precaution the . owners were guilty of neghgence, for which they, like other cpnimon camera, must be held answerable, lh,' determining this case I have disregarded tmj admission of liability by the defendant' thinking it simply amounted tp a natural di* sire on nis part to settle the dispute aihioably rather go into Courty particularly ■ as a new class of trade was opening up for i his employers. I therefore give judgment j fpr the plaintiff; for L 52, being three-fifths' of the damage; proved to have beensuataimMi, with costs. j Findlay Bros. v. John Crawford. was a fraud summons, and defendant was* ordered to pay the amount (L 22) in weekly instalments of LI each, in default six weeks’' impnsonmena. ;