MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 521, 18 February 1876, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Friday, Feb 18. (Before G. L. Hellish, Esq, R.M.) Drunkenness.— The following inebriates were dealt with:—Jane Glass, an old offender, was fined 20s; John Daly fined ss; Jacob Moore fined ss. Breaking into and Stealing from a Stoke. —James Faulkner was charged with breaking into a store belonging to Mr Weedon, and stealing therefrom certain bottles of beer. Police-sergeant Wilson deposed that he arrested the prisoner yesterday afternoon on the above charge. H e first denied it, and then afterwaCrds admitted that he was in the store with another man. Afterwards witness found the bottles of Sorter produced near Dr Campbell’s resience. Witness on examining the store found that entrance had been effected by breaking open a window, A witness named Thompson deposed to seeing prisoner near the store at five o’clock in the morning. Prisoner, who had bottles in his pocket and under his vest, said that he had come for a drink of beer as he was mad; he begged for mercy, as his wife had left him, and he was mad. Witness identified the bottles produced. Prisoner stopped near the place where the bottles were found for a short time, find then ran away as fast as he could. Entrance had been effected into the store by tearing down 'the boards which had been nailed over a window. R. Y. Weedon gave corroborative evidence. The prisoner, in his defence, said he had taken some drink when hp met a man who gave him some porter, and induced him to go to the store, where he gave him more bottles. He knew that he I had done wrong, but as this was his first offence, he trusted the Court would be as lenient with him as possible. As soon as he got the chance he would clear out of the province. His Worship sentenced the prisoner to one month’s imprisonment with hard labour. Civil Cases. —Harbottle v Fuhrmann. In this action Thomas Edward Harbottle of Christchurch,| accountant, is plaintiff, and H. Fuhrman of Christchurch, upholsterer, defendant. Plaintiff sues defendant to recover the sum of £IOO for damages sustained by plaintiff by reason of injuries inflicted on him through the negligent driving of defendant’s servant on 16th day of December, 1875. Mr Joynt for plaintiff; Mr G. Harper for defendant. Plaintiff deposed that on 16th December last, he was driving from the North town belt in an easterly direction, A collision occurred between witness’ trap and another, about forty yards from the plantation near the Springfield road, and the same distance from Mrs Edwards’ house where witness was residing. (Plan of the locus in quo put in shewing the course taken by plaintiff’s and defendant’s traps.) Witness saw defendant’s trap coming towards him, and he immediately turned from the centre of the road towards the left side of the road towards the plantation. The lad driving defendant’s trap kept close to the plantation, and drove into witness’ trap, the abaft striking the horse. There was plenty of room for defendant’s man to have gone on the proper side. Witness was thrown out and severely injured, from which he had been suffering ever since. Witness was before the accident in perfect health, witness and Mr Furhman’s lad were both driving steadily. Witness was an experienced driver. W r as in bed for three weeks, and had suffered very severely. Had not attended.to business since. Witness’ salary was £3 per week. Still suffered severe pain at times. Crossexamined—Was about forty yards from Mr Fuhrmann’s trap when witness first saw it. The boy was driving on the grass. If witness had drawn on the wrong side of the road the boy would have passed; but witness thought that the boy was an experienced driver; the boy kept close to the fence all along. Witness crossed over to the left side, supposing that the boy would take the proper side. When the coillifi|kJjook place, plaintiff’s horse was struck onUhe shoulder. Defendant’s trap at the time; There were ladies tvad a little boy in the trap at the time. The ooy was thrown out but not injured. The horse witness was driving belonged to Mr Campbell ; it was rather hard on one side of the mouth. Was thrown out immediately the collision took place. Witness’ horse turned, and went towards the Carlton. The boy appeared to have the horse under control. He had plenty of time to cross over to the proper side, and undoubtedly saw witness crossing to his proper side. Re-examined —Had no reason for supposing that the boy knew that he was goingthe wrong side ; tried to pull up when the collision was about to take place, but it was too late. Dr Nedwill who had attended the plaintiff from the 16th December last, described the nature of the injuries plaintiff had received, which were of a very serious character. Could pot give any definite opinion as to when plaintiff would be restored to perfect health. Did not think it at all possible that plaintiff would be well in isix weeks. Witness had sent in an account of £lO 10a to plaintiff up to the present lime. Miss Edwards, plaintiff’s sister-in-law, who was in company with plaintiff at tjie time pf the collision gave corroborative pyidence. On cross-examination the witness said that plaintiff was thrown out ; he did not jump out. Miss Clara Edwards also gave corroborative evidence. James D’Emden deposed that he did not see the accident happen, but afterwards visited the spot, the wheel marks were quite plain and defendant seemed to have been closest to the plantation. Plaintiff’s wheelmarks were about 6ft from the plantation. The accident occurred about 50 yards from Mrs Edwards’,, gate. Defendant rode up to Mrs Edwards’ that evening, and said that be

understood from the boy that plaintiff was driving westward instead of eastward, and would hold plaintiff responsible for injury done to his (Fubrman’s) horse. Witness pointed out the spot to Mr Fuhrman, and told him how the accident occurred, and he then rode away. Saw defendant’s horse afterwards ; it was wounded near side of flank. Plaintiff was recalled, and said positively that Fuhrman’s horse was going at the same pace that his (plaintiff’s) horse was going. Could say for certain that Fuhrman’s horse was not walking at the time. James Campbell described the injuries his horse had received. It was a quiet horse, eight or nine years old. It was wounded on the near shoulder. This closed plaintiff’s case. The following evidence was tendered for the defence Ohas. Pugh deposed that he was in defendant’s employ on the 16th December last. He was driving defendant’s cart at an easy trot round the North belt. When he got round Mr Gould’s corner he saw another carriage coming towards him, about 25ft off. The carriage ran into witness. When witness turned the corner he went on to the wrong side. When he saw the vehicle coming towards him, he stood still, close to the fence. The trap ran into witness, not witness into the trap. The witness had been used to driving. His horse was very quiet ; in fact, a child might drive him. Cross-examined —When witness turned the corner the other trap was in the middle of the road. Witness did not go on to his proper side, because if he had done so he was afraid that the other trap would have run into him. Witness came round the plantation at an easy trot, and pulled up as soon as he saw the danger. Pulled up the horse, and it stopped dead as it always does when pulled up. Directly plaintiff saw witness he drew on towards the plantation ; that was plaintiff’s proper side, and if plaintiff had gone on to the wrong side the accident would not have happened. Witness had not time to go on the proper side when he turned the corner. Did not know whether plaintiff had lime or not. ▲ Money, an expert, said that if he had seen any fear of an accident, he should have pulled up. It appeared from what he heard that the boy was afraid to cross a road from fear of a broadside collision. There was a little excuse for the boy. It was the safest course to pull up if there was danger. Cross-examined —If witness had considered there was room when he turned the corner, he should have crossed over to the proper side. There was a diversity of opinion as to the distance. Could not tell whether it was owing to the boy’s inexperience or not. Probably the boy was frightened. A witness named Pearce was called, but he knew nothing of the matter. Mr Harper contended that, although the rule of the road was to be observed where practicable, it was by no means an infallible rule, but might be broken when circumstances required (Olay v Wood, 5 Espinasse, 44; Cruden v Fenton, 2 Espinasse, 686 ; Pluckwell v Wilson, 5 Carrington and Payne, 375; Turley v Thomas, 8 Carrington and Payne, 103). He contended that it was plaintiff’s duty to have kept clear of the boy, and then no accident would have happened ; it was through plaintiff’s drawing over towards the boy that the accident took place. It was evident, on the authority of the cases cited, that plaintiff was mistaken in supposing that it was his duty to keep on the proper side, come what might. Mr Joynt submitted that the old cases which his learned friend had cited did not in the least apply to the present case, because they referred to persons who had crossed the road in order to get on their own side in spite of danger that was apparent. They had deliberately asserted their right to the road regardless of consequences ; but there was nothing to show that Mr Harbottle had been actuated by any such motives. No doubt the boy had got frightened, and committed an error of judgment, and that, combined with the boy’s careless driving, was the cause of the accident. The learned counsel cited Chaplin v Hawes and others, 3 Carrington and Payne, 554. He would submit that it had been clearly made.out that defendant’s servant was entirely wrong, and that it had not been shown that there was contributary negligence on the part of the plaintiff. His Worship reserved judgment until Wednesday next.

LYTTELTON. Thursday, February 17. [Before W. Donald, Esq, B.M.J Drunkenness. William McNaughton, arrested by Constable Daley, charged with this offense, was fined 10s. Absent without Leave.— Ernest Winter, a seaman belongiag to the Prince Alfred, was charged by Captain Bennett with this offence, and sentenced to three days’ imprisonment.

Combining to Disobey Orders.— Eleven seamen belonging to the ship Rangitikei were charged by Captain Scotland with the above offence. Mr Nalder appeared for the accused, and in cross-examination the captain admitted that the forecastle was in a bad and wet state during the voyage. Mr Nalder addressed the Bench on behalf of the accused, contending that they had a right to refuse duty considering the state the forecastle was in. The Bench said that the accused had no right whatever to refuse duty ; they ought to have asked to be allowed to make a complaint to a Magistrate, and after asking them if they were willing to turn to, and all answering in the negative, they were each sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment with hard labor.