MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2424, 12 January 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHBISTOHTTBOH. Wednesday, Jan dab y 11.

[Before Caleb Whitefoord, Esq., E.M.] Civil Oabeb.— Hale, v Edwards. Mr Spaokman applied for a rehearing Of this ease, or for the alteration of a case stated by the Court, for appeal. Ho said that, on judgment being given in this Court for defendant, the late Resident Magistrate (Mr Mellish) had stated a case, in which, however, an important omission of evidence had been made, and before that could be remedied Mr Mellish died. Ho now asked that the omission should be supplied, or the case reheard. Mr Thomas, for the other side, opposed. Mr Whitefoord, after hearing counsel, declined to grant the application. He was precluded, even if he felt inclined to re-open the case, from doing so by the terms of the Resident Magistrates Act, which forbade one Resident Magistrate granting a re hearing of a case heard by another. The only recourse now was to apply to the Supreme Court, which could, if it thought fit, grant a re-hearing.—Scrimshaw v Hamilton and Willis, £8 10s ; Mr J. Struthers Williams for plaintiff. Mr Stringer for defendant. This was a claim for the value of a pall lent in August 1881 by plaintiff, an undertaker, to the “ property man ” of defendants, then lessees of the Theatre Royal, Christchurch. The loan was made to supply stage furniture in a representation of “Richard the Third.” The pall was by some means lost, and plaintiff now sued for its value. The case had been hoard shortly after the loss of the article, but for various reasons had been postponed from time to time by different Magistrates until it was now necessary to begin de novo. It was not denied that the pall had been obtained and used, but the defendants disclaimed responsibility for the loss, saying that no authority had been given the property man to borrow it on this occasion, although in other instances that had been done, and that it was the contract of the property man to provide “ properties’' of the kind. After hearing evidence, his Worship said, although the pall was handed to the property man, it was really lent to the defendants. He gave judgment for plaintiff with costs of Court, solicitor’s fee £1 lls 6d, also the costs of one adjournment. Campbell v Miller, claim £lB 4s 6d, for medical attendance. Mr Martin appeared for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. It appeared, according to the statement of plaintiff, that in September, 1880, one MoOafferty was under treatment by the late Dr. Campbell. MoOafferty died, and defendant, who was his brother-in-law, obtained his effects, and this action was brought by the executor of Dr, Campbell to recover the amount due to the latter person. The defence was that whatever belonging to MoOafferty which had come into defendant’s possession had since been handed over to the public trustee. Judgment for defendant with costs of Court and solicitor’s fee, Hubbard v Tutton, £29, claim for wages. Ms Stringer, for defendant, proved to _ the satisfaction of the Court that plaintiff bad been taken into defendant’s house from charity, and when defendant refused, on account of plaintiff’s misconduct, to keep him any longer, the present claim was made. Judgment for defendant.—Hill v Ford, £lO, being the value of a terrier dog alleged to have been poisoned through the neglect of defendant. Mr Loughrey appeared for plaintiff. Mr Stringer for defendant. Plaintiff had been with his dog on a visit to the garden of defendant, where poison had been laid. After their entry defendant bethought himself of the poison and removed it, but the dog had partaken of it, and shortly afterwards expired. The defence was that the poison had been laid for cats, and the death of the dog had been pure misadventure. Defendant had offered £1 to plaintiff’s wife, who however, demanded £5, and on refusal the present action was brought. The garden was securely and carefully fenced, aud the poison had not been laid so as to attract animals as a bait. Evidence on both sides was led to the above effect, and Mr Loughrey argued that there had been negligence by defendant, insomuch that notice of the poison should have been posted on the ground. His Worship thought defendant had exercised reasonable care, and that the death of the dog had been a simple accident. Judgment was given for defendant, with costs of Court and expenses of one witness, ss. Judgments went by default for plaintiffs, with costs, in Ellis v Gibson, £4 Is ; Tombs and Co. v Renner, £39 Is 7d ; Connelly v Cochrane, £2 ; City Council v Horsfield, 6s 6d; v Vavasour, 6s 6d ; and v Willis, 6s 6d ; Brown v Stevens, £lO 8s 8d ; Percy v Dockery, costs, 7s ; and Haskins v Fobs, £l7 16s. Wilson v Parker and Porker v Wilson were adjourned till January 18th,

Thursday, January 13. [Before G. L. Bee and R. W eatonra, Eeqs., J.P.'s.] Drunkenness. —Bobt. Tyndall was fined 5s for being found drunk. Furious Driving.—Wm. George Rodgers was obarged on information with the above offence. Mr Joyce appeared for defendant. Joseph Lightford deposed that he was a butcher in the employment of Mr Angell. About 9 o’clock on the evening of December 24th last he was riding along at a slow cantor on his right aide of the road in Victoria street, on the town side of the bridge. Ho was going towards Cathedral square. He had a basket of meat on bis knee. Defendant came along in a spring cart in the opposite direction. He was'on the same side of the road as plaintiff, and there being no room to pass with the horse between the plaintiff’s cart and the footpath, a collision occurred. The right shaft of the cart ran into the right shoulder of the horse which plaintiff was riding. It was instantly killed. It’s rider was thrown off; he was hurt in the hip, and he received further injuries which laid him up for some time. Defendant drove away without staying to see what damage had been done, R. Ostler, who saw the accident, corroborated the above evidence, adding that after the collision defendant whipped up his horse, notwithstanding the efforts of witness to detain him. The horse in the cart had not bolted. B. Angell proved the injuries received by Lightford and the horse. Defendant stated, that after stopping at Young’s shop, Victoria street, he was driving across Victoria street slowly, with the intention of going to Colombo bridge by the terrace at the back of the Coffee Palace, when plaintiff rode up at a furious pace and ran into the cart. The horse in the cart—a young one—plunged and bolted, and it was not till defendant got home that he found out that the shaft of the cart had penetrated the horse. When crossing the road to get into Oxford terrace he was obliged to cross plaintiff’s path, when he saw there was an accident impending ; however, he pulled his horse sharp to the left, which placed the cart, at the moment of collision, in a lino with Victoria street, and accounted for the fact of the horse being killed by the right shaft of it. Henry Wild deposed to seeing the accident. Plaintiff was riding at a smart pace ; defendant was not going fast, and appeared to bo crossing from Young’s shop to Oxford terrace. similar evidence. This was the whole of the evidence. Their Worships thought defendant bad been to blame, and fined him 10s, costs of Court, and expenses of one witness.

LYTTELTON. Thursday, January 12. [Before John Ollivier, Esq., R.M.] An Imprudent Young Man. —Thomas Bailey was charged with assaulting Mary with using bad language towards her. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for the complainant. The complainant sail that on Sunday night defendant used most coarse and disgraceful language to her on account of a fault found with a shirt she had ironed for him. Defendant also clutched her by the throat, and threatened to knock her down. Evidence was given in corroboration of the girl’s statement. The Bench gave the defendant a wholesome lecture, and fined him 403 and costs.