MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 273, 27 April 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, April 27. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness.—The following inebriates were dealt with :—Annie Murphy ; this being a first offence, and defendant's character good, she was discharged with a caution. J. G. Osborne, for drunkenness and using obscene language, was fined 10s. Drunk and Illegally on Premises.— Hamilton Shaw was charged with being illegally on the premises of Mr McTaggart. It appeared that defendant was found drunk sleeping in Mr Mc.Taggart's stable. On his promise to join the Good Templars, the defendant was discharged with a caution. Breach of Sheep Ordinance.—E. Mitchell was charged under the 38th section of the Sheep Ordinance, 1872, with having on 21st April last driven certain sheep infected with scab on the high road near the public sale yards. Defendant said he would admit the offence, although he had erred inadvertently and under a wrong impression. Mr Wynn Williams said that he appeared in support of the information and as he was instructed to press for a penalty, the lowest of which could be inflicted being £25, it would be necessary to go into the evidence. Mr Mitchell said that he had admitted the offence, as he had inadvertently committed it. He wished to stamp out the scab, in fact he had destroyed between 800 and 900 sheep which he thought might be infected. He would withdraw his admission and ask for an adjournment. Mr Thomas said that as that was the case, and as he had only just been instructed, he would apply for an adjournment, and withdraw the admission. His client admitted nothing. • Mr Wynn Williams said that he would consent thereto on Mr Mitchell paying the costs of the day. Mr Thomas said he would consent. The Bench adjourned the case to 4th May, defendant to pay the costs of the day. LYTTELTON. Monday, April 26. [Before W. Donald, R.M., and H. R. Webb, Esq, J.P.] Drunkenness.—Francis Arwood, arrested by Constable Wallace on the Sumner road, was accused of this offence. Accused stated that she had taken a passage in the Lady Jocelyn. Sentenced to pay 10s, or fortyeight hours' imprisonment. The fine was paid. William Hall, arrested by Sergeant Maguire, was fined 10s or twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Civil Case, —Wood, Shand, and Co v the Superintendent of Canterbury. This was a claim for £2l 5s lOd for damage done to fifteen drums of oil, eight of which were utterly lost, and the remainder damaged in transit from the ship Hudson to a truck on the Gladstone pier last year. Mr Garrick appeared for Wood, Shand, and Co, and Mr Wynn Williams for the defence. Mr Parker, chief officer of the Hudson, stated that last year certain drums of oil were injured in landing them from the ship. The oil belonged to Wood, Shand, and Co. The vessel was lying at the Gladstone pier unloading int.-, railway trucks. They were discharging with the aid of a steam donkey engine, which was placed opposite the main hateh. When all the cargo was discharged from the main hatch they commenced with the fore hatch, down which the oil was. The chain attached to the donkey engine was not long enough to work the fore hold without the engine was shifted, to avoid doing which the railway people borrowed a rope belonging to the ship to use instead of the chain. After discharging some cargo with the rope, fifteen drums of oil were put into the sling to be hoisted up. When they were as high as the foreyard the rope broke, and they fell on the chain cable, and six tins were smashed, and the oil ran through the scuppers ; the remaining tins were dented. The rope broke through coming into contact with the cog wheels. If the engine had been at the fore hatch there would have been no necessity for the use of the rope. The oil was hoisted too high, and the man at the winch was called to to stop. If it had not gone so high, the accident might not have happened. Cross-examined by Mr H. W. Wynn Williams—lt is not unusual to use rope in discharging. Captain McClellan never warned me not to use the rope. Captain Trewin, Captain Galbraitb, and Messrs Hudson and Beaumont were examined for the plaintiff. Mr H. W. Williams asked the Bench to nonsuit the plaintiff, on the ground that by the Provincial Law Suits Act, the Superintendent had to receive one month's notice before any cause could be heard against him as Superintendent, and also that no claim could lie six months after the occurrence. Mr Garrick contended that the Superintendent was in this case a common carrier. The Bench determined on hearing the evidence for the defence before deciding this point. Captain Hugh McClellan, pier master, called, said that the Government were not obliged to find steam power for the vessels discharging ; the railway merely did it for the purpose of facilitating matters, and getting the vessels discharged quickly. More than two-thirds of the vessels were discharged without steam cranes or donkey engines at the time this affair happened. No charge waß made for their use ; they were supplied to those vessels that applied for them, as was thought best. He had told the chief officer that it was not safe to use rope with the donkey engine when he was discharging some salt from the afterhatch. A rope was not a safe thing to use, it should be a chain. The captain had stated at the first hearing that he had not)

applied for steam power ; this was not true, as he had done so in the presence of Mr Packard and others. Mr Packard corroborated what had fallen from Oapt. McHellan. Olliver, the engine-driver, and Belt<*liffe and Kennedy, who were loading the truck at the time, swore that it was the chief officer who arranged about substituting the rope for the chain. The engine was altered to a right angle for working the fore hatch ; it was not moved to the fore hatch because it was on a heap of railway iron, and it would have taken a long time to shift it. The reason the accident happened was the rope was too long, and when the oil was hoisted so high the barrel of the winch was full and the rope slipped off and was broken by the cog wheels. The chief officer was told the rope was too long, but refused to cut it as it was wanted for some purpose on board. Captain Galbraith said the steam cranes and donkey engines were merely conveniences for the quicker discharge of ships. Angus also gave evidence as to the mate's refusing to cut the rope. Captain Trewyn said that what he said at a former hearing was that he did not ask for a donkey engine, and he did not do s». He asked for a steam crane. Mr W. H. Wynn Williams addressed the Bench at length, arguing that no act'on could lie, as it v» as evident the Superintendent was not a common carrier, it having been clearly proved that the steam cranes and donkey engines were merely conveniences for facilitating the discharge of vessels, and that there was no obligation on the Superintendent's part to supply them. The case of Jones v McAndrew,"heard at Dunedin, was clear on this point [extract read], besides this it was clearly proved that by using tackle not belonging to the winch the plaintiffs had contributed towards the.accident, and therefore could have no claim. Mr Garrick said there was an implied contract, as the Government undertook to carry the goods by rail. He would apply for a rehearing of the case against the captain of the vessel. It was a most important that it should be decided who were liable to reimburse the consignees. If the Bench decided that the plaintiffs had contributed to bring about the result, of course defendant was not liable. The Bench said that the usual system had been to consider goods clear of the ship's deck in the hands of the railway. Three of the witnesses had sworn that the mate had been the occasion of the rope being used, and he was, therefore, obliged to give the verdict for the defendant in spite of the mate's statement, as it was clear the plaintiffs had themselves contributed to the wrong. Mr Garrick asked for a rehearing of the case against the captain of the Hudson. Mr Nalder, for the captain, argued it would be a great injustice to have another hearing, as such a long time had elapsed, and though the captain and mate of the Hudson had again come out in the vessel, a great many of the sailors were absent. The captain had not left the port for fifteen or sixteen days after the last trial, and some steps should then have been taken. The Bench decided not to grant a rehearing, as many witnesses might be out of the Court's jurisdiction.