MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2185, 25 February 1881, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

OHRISICHURCH. TnUBSPAY, February 24. [Before B. Westenra, S. Hewlings, and H. Inman, Esqs., J.P.'sJ Civil Casks.—Jenkios v Payne, £6 10a, and Same v McDonald, £6 10s. Mr Nalder for plaintiff, Mr Joyce for defendants. These were aotlons in whioh plaintiff, the owner of the sohooner, Elizabeth Curie, sought to recover from defendants, at one time A.B.s on that vessel, the amounts claimed, being £lO, the price of a new boat, and £3, the price of another, which expenso plaintiff alleged he was put to in oonsequenca of defendants having, by their negligence, lost or caused to be wrecked a boat belonging to him. Tho matter in another form came befor the Court on February 3rd, when plaintiff, haying stopped the amount claimed from the wages due to defendants, was sued by them, and was ordered to pay the amounts they claimed. As. however, Mr Jenkins' principal witness, Grubb, the master of the schooner, was on a voyage, the cost of the boat was impounded pending his attendance in any suit that might bo brought within a given time by the owner against the seamen. The present case is the reßult. John G-rubb, master of the Elizabeth Curie, stated that en the night of November 7th, 1880, after being on shore, he and his boat's crew, with the master of the Spec, went aboard, that was about 0.30. The vessel was lying outside the breakwater ready for sea, the wind was fair, and it was his intention to weigh anchor at once, and proceed to sea. Arriving alongside witness, his mate, eook, and another man got on board. Witness went down to his cabin, and on returning on deck found that the defendants had taken his boat away, conveying the master of the Spec on board his own boat. The master of the Speo had come off with them for that purpose, but witness intended to eoull him on board himself while the crew were getting the vessel under weigh. Ho had not given defendants orders to take the boat, nor had they asked his permission. The men did not return within a reasonable time, and looking through his sight glass he saw them heading for the shore. He hailed them to oome on board, but they still went on. There was only a moderate broezo blowing. The Spec's boat was not more than a hundred yards away, and witness could easily alone have sculled the boat so as to do the work the defendants' set out to do. "Witness paced the deck all night, keeping a bright look out for the boat, which however did not return. At daylight he hailed another vessel, got the loan of a boat, and went on shore. He found his boat stranded on the toe of the breakwater, with her bottom knocked out. Her painter was made fast to a stone, the oars were gone, but he found six tholepins in her, four in their places, and the others about her skin. He went up town about 5.30 a.m. and met defendants, who were sober, but seemed as if they had been drinking the night before. Witness hired a boat for the trip for £3, and next voyage bought a new boat for £lO. Crossexamined—Witness said the boat that was wrecked was rather old, she had canvas patches on her bottom—two. Defendants were sober that night, as sober as he was, they had had two or three drinks together—captain and men. They made a trip before going on board the sohooner. They went under the bows of the ship Opawa. He went on board that ship, and his boat's crew passed a seaman belonging to her with his bag, bedding, &o. into the boat. If a quantity of rope was put out of the Opawa into the boat, witness had nothing to do with it. When witness questioned defendants as to the loss of the boat, they told him that owing to the force of the wind they had broken the tholepins, and had to run for it to the nearest beach. John Gerard, living atLyttelton, said he saw defendants on the morning after the loss of the boat, they looked as if they bad been drinking overnight—they were unsteady on their legs. This was the case for plaintiff. For the defence the defendants, Thomas Anderson, mate of the schooner, O. Burt, A. 8., the cook of the schooner, and Jacob Livehere, barman at the Boyal Hotel, Lyttelfcon, gave voluminous evidence, of whioh the following is a resume fendants in consequence of implied, if not expressed, instructions from the master of the E. Curie, had put the master of the Speo on board his own boat. While on the pissage back a squall struck them, and in endeavoring to fetch their own vessel the tholepins broke, and they were obliged to make for the shore wherever they oould fetch. They managed to land at the breakwater, they hauled the boat up as well as they oould, and then went to an hotel and got beds for the night. It was raining and blowing very hard. They were wet through and exhausted. There was not a boatman about, and they had no means of communicating with their vessel. The cook of the E. Curie stated that it was blowing so hard that the master, Grubb, got him to help "eockbill," the second anchor, ready to let go, which, however, was not done. Anderson, the mate, said it was blowing " eyes out," and he thought no boat could weather the storm that was raging. The barman of the Boyal Hotel deposed that defendants came to that house very much the worse of the weather. They were " wringing wet," and told him they had been cast ashore in their boat. They were quite sober. A good deal of evidence was given about the transaction under the bows of the Opawa, but none of it seemed relevant to the case, except that Mr Joyce argued that the master of the schooner by carrying out an illegal under' taking delayed the boat so that, owing to the increasing gale, its wreck was the consequence. After hearing addresses from counsel, the Benoh said there was not evidence enough to fix negligence on the part of defendants. Judgment for defendants, the verdiot to carry costs and solicitors' fees in the previous actions. In the above action Jenkins v Payne was nominally tried; in Jenkins v McDonald, plaintiff accepted a nonsuit. City Council v Sorimgeour, 6s 6d for scavengering charges. Plaintiffs admitted that the money claimed had been paid, and a receipt given for the same. The only point in dispute was whether the amount claimed by defendant as wages for lost time was exoessive or not. Defendant ) stated he had been brought from Methven to answer this summons. He was earning 20s per diem. Plaintiffs, on discovering their mistake, had offered him 10s as his day's wages. He had had been up to meet the train from 3 a.m., and would not get back again till nine at night. Judgment for defendant, with costs 9j, railway fare for defendant 14s 93, and 15s for his loss of wages. Pye v Johnson, £2 3s 6J, for rent and goods supplied ; judgment for plaintiff for £1 9j 6dand costs. Magon v W. and A. Bennett, for meat supplied. Mr Thomas for plaintiff, Mr Joyce for defendants. Defendants pleaded that the brothers above-named should not have . been sued together, William being alone responsible. On the evidence the Bench gave judgment for plaintiff with oosts. Magon v Bennet (W-), £lO, value of a horse sold to defendant. The same gentlemen appeared for their respective clients. It was proved that the horse for which the price was sued for did not belong to plaintiff. He was nonsuited with costs. Judgments for plaintiffs with costs were given in default of appearance of defendants in City Council v Brooker, 6i 6d ;' White v Smith, £6 13s ; Hobbs and Co. v Dutton, £3 ; executors of Stewart v Harney, £1; Badoliffe v Thomas, £1 4s 9d ; and, Montgomery and Co. v O'Callaghan, £2. Bardsley v Tilston was adjourned till March Ist; Wilson v Goodyer and Cross and Co. v Mcintosh, till March 3rd. Fbiday, Febbuabt 25. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., B.M.] Dbunkbnhbbb.—John Kelly, who has been convicted frequently of larceny and other offences, and who had only been liberated from Gaol on Wednesday, was fined 20s. H. J. who also had only just been at Lyttelton Gaol for medical treatment, was dismissed with a caution. AILBOBD LABOBNY PROM A DWELLING. — Bobert Littleoot, alias Alf. Jones, on remand from Wellington, was brought up charged with stealing on or about June 4 f h, 1879, a ring valued at 30», the property of F. Palmer. The scoused stated that, at the time of the alleged offence, he was an inmate of Akaroa Hot pital, and on his application, a remand was granted till Tuesday next, for the produorion of witnesses. Stbalino a Fbncb-i-OST.—Elizabeth Yates admitted having stolen a post, value Is, the property of Charles Behuk. There were six previous conviotions reoorded against her. Her mother, who was in Court, made a strong appeal in her favour, and the magistrate said hi would, under the circumstances, he lenient. Sentenced to forty-eight hours' imprisonment with hard labour. Illbgally on Pbbmibbb. —George Markham, who had been fonnd sleeping the previous night in Brightling's stables, Cathedral square, was dismissed with a caution.