RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume III, Issue 195, 13 April 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

(Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) Thursday, April U. CIVIL OASES. In the cases of George Holmes against Turner and Rathke, and Wiesenhavern against Marks, heard at' the Resident Magistrate's Court, oji Thursday, judgment was given by default. The first mas a claim of L 5 14s for cartage, the other of L 33 18s 6d for goods supplied. In Montague against Hines for L.lO, the defendant admitted the debt, exhibiting, however, an almost impossible inclination to explain the peculiarities of his position, which the Magistrate seemed disinclined to [ appreciate, and gave judgment against the defendant. [ ' In Cattle against Kittelty and Co., the pummons not having been properly served the case was dismissed. In M'liPtin flgiiiusfc Thompson and Co., and in M 'Candley's and Co. against Murphy and 'Pennant there was no appearance of plaintiffs. . The case of the Grey River Steam Tug Company against Captain Wing, ' of the Halcyon, for L 75 for towage, was again \ipon the palter for hearing, Mr Tyler appearing for tlic plaintiffs and Mr O-'Lon'ghlin for defendants, L2O having bcon paid into Court. Mr Tyler applied for an adjournment on the ground' of his principal witness being unavoidably absent. Mr O'Longhlin opposed this second adjournment, as his client's vessel was kept idle, owing to the enforced .letention of Captain ..Wing- for this trial," 'and they had four witnesses who would entirely lose their day. If the case were adjourned he should, at least, apply for the expenses of these witnesses and the detention of the Halcyon. It was also objected that as the jurisdiction of Court in the case would expire on the loth inst., it was necessary it should be heard without further delay. It was ultimately decided to adjourn the hearing until Saturday next, the 13th inst., the witnesses expenses being allowed. Kennedy- Brothers against Heslop. — Mr O'Lnuqli'lii), on the part of the plaintiffs,, applied for an adjournment, on account of the absence of Mr Kennedy, who had left the previous day in the Dispatch, and had. not yet returned.' After some discussion this was consented to by defendant, Mr O'Loughlin agreeing on the part of his clients to pay the cost of the attendance of witnesses. . Henry James v. Henry Pridgeon. : — This was a claim for wages for five weeks and four days, during which the plaintiff had been engaged in packing for the defendant from Paltwater Creek to the Deep Lead, at, as he alleged, L 4 a week, but as Pridgeon asserted, at 30s. There was a set off, the items of which were admitted, and L 4 had been paid into Court in settlement of the balance due. Mr O'Loughlin appeared for plaintiff, and MiTyler for defendant. The plaintiff stated that he had been engaged by Mr Pridgoon to pack a horse, along a most abominable track from Saltwater Creek to the Deep Lead, and that defendant had said he would not make any arrangement then, but they would not fall out about wages. He had worked hard, from daylight to dark every day, including Sundays, and considered he had fully earned the money he claimed. When he asked for a settlement he was offered 30s a week, which he refused, and now summoned Mr Pridgeon for the balance due, at the rate of L 4 a week. He produced. Mr E. Gardiner as evidence to prove; that the current rate of wages for such work was L 4 a week and food, and that he himself was paying plaintiff at that rate. He also stated that he frequently paid, up the Little Grey, LI a day, and that was there the current rate given although the tracks were not worse, or even so bad, as that from the Saltwater, but he admitted, on cross examination, that it was for driving four horses, instead of one, as in this case. Mr Pridgeon, for the defence, stated that James had come to him, in a very distressed condition, saying that he was "hard up," and asking for a job, for which he was willing to take anything that was offered. He had told him be shruld pay him 30s a week and his. food, which was eagerly accepted, and he believed that if he had offeied him Ll a week he would have taken it. There was very little to do, and he was not p.mTVlm>ftrl l^Jf.^^n time. He^<|^^^M|HM||i|MHH|H^H

Court, he paying costs, which anioiirited ? L4los. . / H James Davies v. Christina Elder. -TIM^H was a re-hearing of a case fo/ damages j I^H curred by plaintiff, who had been thro '\^M down by the horse of the defendant, on }^M turning from the late races, and sufferec J/^H dislocation of the collar bone. Mr Ty aft^H appeared for the. plaintiff, and stated thep * ticulars of the accident, which have alrea been recorded in our columns. He called! I W. Dale, a stationer, who stated that he.! 1 to go to the course with a parcel,, and on V H turning witnessed the accident, which t \\M place, near the bridge. He saw Mr Da- \ t'fl knocked down by the shoulder, of defeuda 1 ■ horse, and he 'thought lacked. There wei I I number of persons on the r.oad at the tii LIB galloping, on their rufcurn home. W, \ I U'Loughlin, who appeared for the defendant! Ml; ■ called Christina Elder. She stated she weal /I I to the races on a horse hired from Hamilton'! In 1 stables. On leaving the course there were /1 1 a number of horses alongside hers, which c* 1 1 cited he-r's, and he became unmanageable 1 1 She called out to two or three gentlemen k I' l get out of the way, but did not think the* \1 heard her. She swore distinctly that she was unable to hold in the animal when it struck *' Mr Davies and kr-oeked him down. Oib cross-examination she said that the saddle} ; had turned round under the horse's belly] ■{; near the pathway which led from the racel ' course. She had dismounted, and M 'Guire I \ had assisted her to replace the saddle and I. le-mount. Tt was then the horse became | restive. He walked forward about 20 or 30 \ yards, and then galloped about 150. She I was accustomed to riding, but was not con- 1 sidered a daring horsewoman. She was not I drunk, having only had two or three nobblera I of claret. When asked her name a second !• time by Inspector James she had told him . 1 James M 'Guire deposed that when Mr James 1. had caught the bridlo and spoken to de- I fendant, he had told him that the horse was U an unmanageable brute, and not fit to carry V a lady. He believed she was well able to 1* manage her horse. In his address to the V Court, Mr O'Loughlin said that he did not 1 think the plaintiff had in the slightest de- l gree mended his case since the last hearing. I He was led to believe some most important further evidence -was to be produced, but nothing of the kind was forthcoming. It was quite clear that the accident arose from an unmanageable horse running away in the- ; <f^i midst of a crowd of people, and could only be. judged -of as an unavoidable mischief Mr , Tyler argued that the horse could not have? fe bolted, and be pulled np within 100 yards. Inspector James had said that he was quite easily pulled up. Gilmer, the owner of the 7l horse had said that the animal had been fre- ..->-* quently hired out during the last four or- v live months, and he had never had a. complaint of his bolting or becoming unmanageable. M 'Guire had. said to the defondaut, ' 4 "Let the reins go, and we- will go on quietly," showing that they had nofe . been going quietly up to that time, and there was no evidence to show- j that the horse, had become; unmanageable, j Mr Revell, in pronouncing judgment, re< § marked that it so happened that he knew f the horse well. So far from beiug given to. t j bolt, he was- apt to stick- you up in the I . middle of the road, and refuse to go on at all. f ' On this occasion he had seen the defendant /? on the road out to the course, and was I A obliged to take his horse on first, to induce J.. her's to follow. He could not believe that, lithe accident was attributable to anything- N but reckless riding, and therefore adjudged./;/: the defendant to pay L2O and costs. jj/ f Friday, April 12. I Perjury.— Win. Grey, apolice coristabTeT*^' was charged on the information of John JfjX Bannon with having'committed wilful and ? 1 corrupt perjury. Th/ case, which occupied {■ the Court a considerable time, hinged entirely on the recollection of the informant and the defendant of certain wo'-ds that passed be-- '■■:', tween the parties a few days ago, on tho occasion of the defendant summoning Bannoa fl for having an unregistered dog in his pos-. *'_. se>>.ion . The Magistvate carefully fevieweji | the evidence on both sides, and disiriiflß the case, at the same time remarking jff§ the constable was perfectly free from any imputation in the matter. Breach of Dog Obdinaxcb.— -Mrs Howie: was charged with having an unregistered dog in her possession. The defendant had been summoned on a previous occasion on. the same charge, but she swore that the dog did not belong. to her, but had been brought to the Royal, Hotel by some onci On the first occasion's the case was dismissed, but, fc" shortly afterwards the defendant sent to, \ register the dog, and tins being considered \ proof of ownership slio was again sit mmpnecl K \ and the Magistrate fined her the utmost- «, peimlty allowed by the A ct — L 5. . W