DISTEICT COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume VII, Issue 492, 11 March 1869, Page 2

DISTEICT COURT.

Tuesday, March 9. (Before His Honor Judge Clarke and- a Jury.) NON-DELIVEBY OF GOODS: Anderson and Mowat v. Grejg> LesKe^ and Sweetman.— This was an action to recover Ll6O 14s 3d, as damages for the non-delivery of goods shipped at Dunedin in the defendants' vessel, the Jane Elkin, to be landed at Greymouth or Charleston, but which, were not delivered, and were wholly lost to the plaintiffs. Mr Button appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Perkins for the defendants. The defence waa that the goods were shipped by the plaintiffs, on account, of Charles Bonar, the master of the vessel, for the use of the defendants, and not on account of the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs had not paid freight for these goods to the defendants, that Charles Bonar was not the agent of the defendants, and did not receive the Ll6O on their account, when he received the proceeds of the sale of the goods. Mr Button admitted the bill of lading, the ownership of the vessel, and that Charles Bonar was the master. The following evidence was given : — Andrew Mowat : lam one of the plaintiffs in this case. Our firm in Dunedin shipped goods in the Jane Elkin by this bill of lading. Some time afterwards I went to Charleston, saw Captain Bonar, aud asked him for the goods which were shipped to our order. He said he had sold them. I asked him for the proceeds, and he said he had spent them in entering a protest, in towage, and in repairing the, vessel, as his owners had given him no money. I received from the auctioneer who sold the goods an account-sale, shoving a balance paid over to Captain Bonar of Ll6O 14s 3d. Cross-examined : The Bank of New Zealand was the holder of the goods when the vessel arrived at Charleston, through the bill of lading. We did not appoint the agent ; it was for the Bank to do it. I don't know of Kennedy Bros, being appointed by us agents for these goods. The invoice put in by which Kennedy Bros. " on account of Charles Bonar" is in the writiug of the firm, but those words are not to the best of my knowledge. Re-examined : The copy of the accountsales I received from the auctioneer was " on account of goods sold ex Jane Elkin." Robert M'Owen, agent for the Bank of New Zealand at Charleston : The bill of lading shown me I received through our Dunedin office from Anderson and Mowat. The Bank had not advanced on it. The letter produced accompanied it. When the vessel .arrived, I applied to Kennedy Bros.' agent, but he said he knew nothing about it, and refused to have anything to do with it. I tried to effect a sale but could not, as the market was overstocked at the time. I asked Bonar to proceed to Greymouth, but he said the vessel was not seaworthy. He afterwards sold thegooda by auction without consulting me. He did not give me the proceeds of the sale. Cross-examined: I did not make a specific demand for these goods ; I tried to effect a sale, and kept the bill of lading. This was the plaintiff's case.

Mr Perkins opened the case for the defence, as stated above, and called Charles Bqnax, who stated: I was master of the Jane Elkin in June, 1868. I left Greymouth for Picton in April. I was sailing the vessel .on half the gross profits. I afterwards went to Duuedin, and saw Mr Anderson as to obtaining a cargo for the "West Coast, as my agent said he would load me up on my own account. I went to Anderson Jwul Mowat's store, and told my agent, in Anderson's presence that I had no authority to load on the owner's account, but if he would give me the load I would take it. He gave me 30 tons, and received an invoice which I signed. (The sis^ied invoice was not produced,) I drew on Kennedy Bros, for the value of the cargo, as it was consigned to them. This was because Mr Anderson wanted security for the cargo, and wished tp consign it to some merchant, saying that Kennedy Bro3. had firms in both Charleston and Greymouth, and had the option of both markets. The bill of ladin» was sent through the Bank of New Zealand, and I brought a copy. The one now produced is the one I brought. When I arrived at Charleston I went to Kennedy Bros.' agent, who refused to have anythingto do with it. I went to MrM'Owen, of the B%nk of New Zealand, who said that the bill only came to the agent, and if he would not take it he would have nothing more to do with it. I saw him three times about it, and then stored the cargo with Mr Dwan, who afterwards sold it by auction, but before that I saw Mr M'Owen and consulted him about it. The account-sales produced are the originals. The goods were sold on my account. If there had been any profits on the transaction they would have been mine. The owners were to receive half the freight. Cross-examined : I received Ll6O from the sale, which I paid away for ship's expenses. I did not pay anything for the goods. The cargo was insured through the Bank. I offered the goods to Kennedy Bros., to M'Owen, and also to a Mr Anderson, a friend of the firm Anderson and Mowat. Re-examined : I signed a bill for these goods on my own account for L 279. Francis Sweetman, one of the owners of the Jane Elkin : When Captain Bonar left in April for Dunedin in the vessel he had instructions not to take any cargo on our responsibility. We gave him the ship to do what he liked with her and take her j where he liked. By the Court : We were first to receive half of the freight, and afterwards onethird. I am not aware that Bonar expended Ll6O on the vessel, or that any of our firm received a penny of that sum. Robt. M'Owen : 1 remember the master saying he had a copy of the bill of lading. Andrew Mowat, re-called: The endorsement on the two bills of lading is that of the firm, The Judge remarked to the jury that j the question for them to consider was if ! they believed that the goods were solely J the goods of the captain, in such a manner as not to render the vessel liable, and. this was understood by Messrs Anderson and Mowat, then they must find a verdict for the defendant ; but if they believed otherwise, by the circumstances or improbabilities, of the case, then there was a dear case for the plaintiffs, The jury found a verdict for the defen^ clants, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, Mary Matilda Strickland v. Martha Dickson. — This was an action to recover LIOO damages for assault and false imprisonment. Mr Perkins appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Guinness for the defendant, The action rxose out of a case recently heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court, in which the present plaintiff was charged with having stolen goods in her possession, under the following circumstances: — On the night of the 19th February, Miss Strickland was in the Victoria Dancing Saloon, and was leaving, when a constable took her aside and asked where she got the earrings she was wearing. She said she got them from a girl named Kate Murray, in Hokitika, She was taken to the station by the order of Martha Dickson, who claimed the rings as having been stolen from her house. Plaintiff was locked up for the night, brought up before the Magistrate on the following morning, j and discharged, as there was no evidence to show that she had any knowledge that the rings were stolen property. Constable Flanagan, who arrested the plaintiff, now stated that he could not say that he was distinctly told by the defendant to take the plaintiff in charge, but he did so from what she said and did generally. The defendant went to the station, signed the charge-sheet, but she said she thought she was signing a charge against; Kate Murray, and appeared the next day at the Court to prosecute. Kate Murray (who was brought up by order of the Court from the lock-up) stated that she gave a pair of earrings to Miss Strickland as a present, which she bought from a broker in Hokitika. They were not Martha Dickson's property, so far as she knew. She told Miss Strickland that she had them sent down as a present from the Grey. Miss Cleveland, who was present when the plaintiff was arrested, stated that on the following day the defendant said, "Yes; I gave her in charge for having my earrings." The defendant was called for the plaintiff, and in cross-examination denied that she ever gave the plaintiff in charge. She merely sent for the constable to ask the plaintiff where she got the rings. The rings had been stolen from her house some months before, and she had reported it to the police. Mr Guinness moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to bear out the averments of the declaration. Mr Perkins replied, And the Judge said that had the parties belonged to different ranks of society, he would have looked at this case in a different light. But as to the conduct of the defendant in calling the constable, it was most likely that had she made any direct charge against the plaintiff in the dance-room, with regard to the earrings, that she would have been maltreated, and she took the wise precaution to call a third party. The charge contained in the declaration was not made out. The constable could not say that the defendant gave the plaintiff in charge. She might have set the law in motion by sending for a constable; but there was a great difference between that and giving a person in charge. There were suspicious circumstances in this affair, and what the policeman did, he considered his duty, as he probably knew more about it than any other person. The case hud not been

made out, and a nonsuit must be ordered, but without costs. The Court adjourned until Wednesday.