DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2170, 8 February 1881, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, Febeuaey 7. [Before Hi* Honor Judge Ward.] J, D. T. BOUSE V CANTEEBUEY TBAMWAY COMB ANY. In thi* case, which wae concluded yesterday, Hi* Honor gave judgment for £IOO and caste. MCKENZIE y GBHEN. Mr Stringer for the plaintiff ; no appearance. This wo* a claim of £ll6 12s 2d for rent due and goods supplied. The plaintiff, on examination, said he had made application for payment of the debt. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. HENBY KBEBIBON V QBO. KEBEISON. Mr Nalder for plaintiff, Mr Button for the defendant. The claim wae for £146 on account of wages. Henry Kerrison deposed that his uncle, the defendant, employed him in February, 1877, at £1 per week. He was at the time working for a Mr Kemp at a lower wage, and the offer of an increase induced him to work for the defendant. He had been working for him since that time. Defendant sold the farm, and when he (witness) was going defendant asked him if £IOO would settle the account between them. Witness said yes. As they were relations ho did not want to be bard on him. Defendant never fulfilled his promise. Plaintiff gave a statement as to monies he had received, portions of which he had given to the defendant. His Honor could not give judgment for any amount unless an account was stated, Mr Button would rather give evidence than take a non-suit. He called George Kerrison, the defendant —Had provided for plaintiff and the rest of his brother’s family. Had received nothing from Henry. Gave both Henry and Arthur pocket money—Henry too much. Such a thing as £IOO was never mentioned. Cross-examined—Had fifty acres of land. Henry worked there sometimes, and went out sometimes. Witness had not received £5 from Henry, Might have received a shilling or two. Had never asked plaintiff to come to him. David Anderson, husband of plaintiff’s mother, corroborated the evidence of the defendant. Henry, the plaintiff, had offered witness £5 for taking his side. Further evidence was called to rebut the testimony adduced on plaintiff's behalf. A verdict for defendant was recorded with costs. The Court then adjourned till 11 o’clock to day. Tuesday, Febeuaey 8. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] THOS. H, HODGE V UNION STEAMSHIP COMPANY. Mr Stringer appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Nalder for the defendant. This was a claim for £2OO, damages incurred by the plaintiff owing to negligence of tho company’s servants in unloading the s.s. Arawata, through which plaintiff sustained an accident. The defendant alleged that the accident was the resnlt of plaintiff’s negligence. Thos. H. Hodge, a railway tally-clerk, said his duty was to be in trucks receiving cargo from the steamer. He had been six years a tally-clerk, and this was the custom. Ho had to enter the numbers and marks on the good* into a book. On the 19th of October, 1880, he was attending the discharge of cargo from the Arawata, when a sling struck him and knocked him out of the truck. He fell on his right shoulder, also striking his head. Ha was insensible for five hours. The slings contained bags and cases. He saw it coming through bis attention being called to it, and tried to get away, but had no opportunity of escaping. Witness was still suffering from the accident, not having recovered the complete use of his right arm. He was laid up for four weeks. Witness was a master mariner of some years’ standing. [Witness described how the accident occurred, owing, as be said, to the negligence of the enginedriver and those in charge of the winch.) On this particular occasion be heard some one caution those unloading, remarking that they would “ Kill some one if they went on like that.” The person who had made that remark had unfortnnately been "locked up ”on Monday night for a breach of the railway regulations. Cross-examined by Mr Nalder—l know of no complaint being lodged against me as to my carelessness in taking tally. There was no danger in standing in the trucks if the slings were properly managed. The purser of the Arawata also remarked on the carelessness of the engine driver, saying “ that man will kill somebody.” Ido not remember whether I walked up the wharf after the accident. I have a slight recollection of consulting Dr. Macdonald before going home. I believe I did have a drop of something to drink in the evening, being so much exhausted. I only had half pay whilst I was laid up. I did not do up my garden whilst I was at home. I did send in a claim to the defendants for loss of pay and 10s for liniment, amounting to £4 16s; the claim for medical attendance was a matter for after consideration, the doctor not having sent in his bill.

Dr. Bouse, of Lyttelton, deposed that be attended the plaintiff for injuries received by an accident. He had a contusion of the head, and some injury to the muscle of the right shoulder.

William James Johnson, tally clerk ; John McCormick, shunter on the wharf ; William Henry Griffin, wharf clerk at Lyttelton ; and George William Parker, tally clerk and master mariner, were also examined. This was plaintiff's case. For defendants, Mr Nalder called Bobert Puflett, who deposed that ho was agent for the Union Steamship Company at Lyttelton. He described the manner in which the goods were discharged by the steam winch. It was customary to keep the centre of the truck clear, in order to allow the slings to pass backward and forward, till it reached the perpendicular. The sling always required sufficient momentum to swing it clear of the truck. Witness should not think that the winch could be so managed as not to hurt a basket of eggs. Should say that the proper place for the tally clerk was the wharf or the deck of the steamer. The tally clerks liked seats, and got on the trucks to suit their own convenience, so that they conld sit on the edge of the truck. Had to report the plaintiff for dilatoriness prior to the accident. Plaintiff had sent in a claim for £4 16s. Cross-examined—The driver of the engino could stop the sling at any point with a jerk, but the consequence of this would bo that the cargo would slip out of the slings. The witness was re-examined. Hugh McLellan, Harbor-master at Lyttel ton, was next examined, and his evidence was confirmatory of that given by Mr Puflett. The truck was not the proper place for a tally clerk. When he (witness) had full control of the wharves, he would not permit the tally clerks to be on the trucks during the discharging of cargo. Had occasion to complain of plaintiff on several occasions for “rowing’* with the mates, and obstructing work on the trucks.

James Yule, wharf foreman at the Gladstone Pier, said in discharging ships it was usual for tally clerks to stand ’tween decks or on the platform. It was customary for the tally clerks attending the discharging of steamers to stand on the buffers or in the trucks.

Wm. Kelly, who was in charge of the yardarm tackle on the day of the accident, described the circumstances. The sling came out and cleared Hodge, who was taking tally of some goods in the truck, and passed back, coming over the truck again with a swing, ic struck Hodge, he believed, on the back and knocked him over. Hodge was in the far end of the truck. The sling might have come out a little quicker than any of the others. By the Court- I cannot say whether I cautioned Hodge on this occasion or not. David Dalgleish, purser to the Arawata, said ho had cautioned Hodge to be careful of the slings before the accident. Cross-examined—l did not tell Mr Johnson that the accident was caused through the carelessness of the winch driver, _Mr Johnson, re-called, said Mr Dalgleish did say it was “through carelessness ” the accident occurred. Ho did not mention the engine-driver directly, but ho (Johnson) was prepared that the charge of carelessness did not apply to Hodge, as they had been talking about the engine-driver previously, and his former negligence in Dunedin. This concluded the evidence.

Counsel having addressed the Court, His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff, £25 and costs.

[Left sitting.)