RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1293, 20 September 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Thursday, September 19. • (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) , CIVIL CASES. • The following judgments went by default :— Thompson, Smith, and Barkley v. M'Kay, L 4 5s 9d ; Giesking v. AtherBton, L 6 13s 6d ; Jones v. Taggart, L 6 12s Gd : Jones v. Nevens, 16s ; Jones v. Alexander. Greymouth Gas Co. v. W. J. Coates. — In this case his Worship gave judgment. He said the action was one for the reco- 1 very of L 9 53 Bd, the balance of an amount of deposit paid on certain goods ex Waterman, which was wrecked near Hokitika. The average waa charged at the rate of L 3 per ton, and a further charge ot 2\ per cent, was also made, being the cost of saving the property. It appeared by tho evidence that Mr Coates was owner of the vessel, and that, before the arrival of Mr Coates in Hokitika, the master appointed , Spence Rrothers and Co. as agents on behalf of the underwriters. But, on the other hand, by the average adjustment statement, as placed before him, Mr Coates, on his arrival at the vessel, took upon himself the. direction of all the salvage operations, and paid expenses up to the date of sale, on benalf of consignees of cargo in Greymoiith. Mr Coates, previous to that, ' had abandoned the vessel when she went ashore, and this he did for his own benefit, seeing that the vessel was insured. His abandonment of the vessel, he . did not think, had such a connection with the consignees. The captain and owner were appointed on behalf of the consignees to protect and do their best with the cargo for and on behalf of all parties concerned, and this Mr Coates appeared to have done; Mr Nancarrow, who wa3 acting partially or altogether for all concerned, charged and collected a certain amount on behalf of the average to be afterwards adjusted. He paid over the .whole of that amount to Mr Coates. Mr Coate3,- in his evidence, at first led the Bench to believe that "he had paid the amount to Spence Brothers and Co., but in the course of cross-examina-tion it appeared that he did not pay the amount. He paid over, a cheque of his own—for what amount he was unable to say ; but he admitted that he made.acertain deduction, and did not pay the full amount. He did not state either for what purpose he paid it to Spence Brothers and Co. It appeared by the average adjuster's statement that Spence Brothers advanced a certain sum of money to land and save the goods. Whether this money had bpen paid or not had not been stated. Mr Coates appeared to have gqne to Melbourne, and to have taken all the papers with him, and there tlie average adjustment was made by Mr Benson. Mr Coates was there and gave him full iuformation of all that had occurred. Mr Coates had raised one pomt — that the goods in question were brought on to Greymouth, and the full freight was paid, and he wished the Court to understand that no adjustment had been made. But it appeared that Mr Coates was there to receive the" freight, and gave full information to the adjuster. The adjustment was made, and on that adjustment certain amounts were to be. given to consignees. Mr Coates received the amounts from Mr Nancarrow. He had only paid over a portion, for what purpose .and on what, account the Bench did not know. But, independent of that, he had paid an amount . to Sedgwick which he, was not entitled to pay on average. He had paid to him the full amount, L 6 13s, and' he further allowed Mr Levy a deduction on th&same account to the amount of L 8 12s, and another amount to Mr Magoffin. By these actions he had, as it were, admitted his liability .in the matter. Judgment wojild be given for the plaintiffs for the amount' claimed and costs. E. B. Fox v. Paroa Road Board.— A claim of L - lss, for expenses incurred by coming from Hokitika to Greymouth to attena as a subpoened witness in the case of Regina by the Baroa B,oard v. Hardwick. $he qoinplainant cq»Hed InspectorHickson in corroboration of his statement as to his having been required to attend as a witness, and of the withdrawal, of the case at the request of the Board, after the complainant had come from Hokitika. Mr Guinness, for the Board, said the matter had simply been alloWed to be brought before the Court for the purpose of knowing the Board's liability, and to what amount. He contended that, if liable, through the withdrawal of the prosecution against Hardwick, the complainant was only entitled to two days! expenses — not four days, as charged. The Magistrate held the Board liable, but for the reduced amount of L 4 15s, for which judgment was given. -.' • The Court was occupied for some time afterwards with cases of purely personal interest. r : . i