RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XII, Issue 723, 12 October 1859, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Christchokcii, Tuesday, Oct. 4th. Before J. Hall, Esq., R.M., and J. Brittan, Esq., J.P.

WEBB V. KAVEN.

Adjourned from the 27th ultimo. In this action the 'Plaintiff, Alexander Webb, sought to recover the sum of £6. ss.Bd. from the Rev. John Raven, alleging.'the5 same to be due for freight, wharfage, and storage of certain goods belonging to defendant, conveyed from Lytteltonto the Christehurch Quay. The plaintiff stated his claim as follows :—I ani the wharfinger of Christehureh quay. In January 1854,1 received some goods ex Rover, for the defendant, which I entered in the book I now produce. The defendant took the goods away, and asked: me to make out a bill and said he wouid pay me I claim the sum of £5 12s. Bd. for freight, as I was then in the habit of collecting freights, ss. 6d. for wharfage, and the balance for storage. I have been in the habit of collecting freights for the Rover, but never had any written authority from tl:o owners to do so, I qannot produce any such authority. The goods wore landed at my wharf at Christchurch quay.. They measured 54 tons, and were charged at Is. per ton, the usual wharf dues, I have demanded the wharf charges together with other charges, but the amount has not been paid. By Mr. Wyatt, \n\ behalf of the defendant.—l have no published scale of tolls. >Iy wharf is placed

on the road adjoining the river, and on a'jetty ,in front of the road. ,-.',' Mr. Wyatt urged in defence, that tlie plaintifT was not in a position to sue for the freight, inasmuch as he could not produce his authority to collect the accounts of the Rover ; that his client the defendant, was quite ready to pay the sum due for freight to any authorised agent of the vessel, but did not feel justified in paying money to a person whose authority to receive the same might hereafter be questioned ; as to the claim for wharfage, it'was one that involved a question of much importance both to the public and to other occupiers of wharvea' along the river bank. He denied the plaintiffs right or that of any other individual to enforce a claim for wharf dues for goods landed upon what waa public property. There being no statute or ordL nance empowering the plaintiff to demand wharf tolls as a right. He objected to the charge for storage as it was not included in the claim, the plaintiffs' statement being onjy a claim for freight and wharfage. The decision of the. court was, that the plaintiff was not in a position to sue for freight, nor could he claim storage, as it had Hot been included in his claim, and thirdly, he clearly had.-no ; right whatever to wharfage, the wharf in question being on a public road. Judgment was therefore'recorded for the defendant. Plaintiff to pay l£sl costs. TRANSFER OF LICENBE. (Before John Hall, Esq., R.M,, Joseph Brittan, John: Bealey, and Thos. Cass, Esqrs., J.Ps.) Edwin Coxhead:applied to have the license which' he held at the Royal Oak Hotel, Ghristchurch, transferred to John Whale and James B, Banks. The magistrates, after due consideration, granted the application and the license was transferred to> the joint names of Whale and Banks. BREACH.OF,SHEEP ORDINANCE. REGINA BY J, D. LANCE V. O. J4. MASON. (Before John.Hall,,Esq., R.M.) The accused appeared in answer.to a summons' issued upon a complaint' made by Mr. Lance, that accused had depastured and driven condemned sheepacross his (informant's^ run. Mr. lance produced his shepherd, Henry Laing, to give evidence in support of the charge. Witness deposed to seeing a large mob of sheep, about 2000 or 3000, on the, 13th • ulto., being driven in the direction?of a^ hut,put up by accused, which was on Mr. Lance's run.; Witness believed them to be Mr. Mason's sheep, and was certain they were not from the Heathstopk station;, and the only other sheep near were Mr.. Young's, to the south of the Heathstoek run. The "witness also deposed to tlie situation of the out station hut on • Mr. Lance's run, and the one belonging to accused, towards which the sheep were being driven, upon the survey maps which were produced for that purpose. :■.... -■.;. ■■■■•: '. : ;..-■■ -V ■■ V":_ The accused stated that he had nothing at all to do with the sheep or run; that he had made everything over to trustees before that day; that Mr.. Parkinson was in charge at that time, and Mr., Rule at this present moment. .-,.... The Court said th&tprima facie tlie evidenpe went, to show that accused was the owner of the sheep, within the meaning of the act, and that it was for him to show anything to the contrary; that if the ownership, as accused stated, rested in his trustees, they were under very serious responsibilities respecting these sheep. There were many other charges that could be laid against them other than this present one, under the various^ clauses of :the Sheep Act. The Court would adjourn the case for a week, in order to allow accused an opportunity to bring forward evidence in support of what he alleged. The case was adjourned accordingly to the llth instant. HOOD U. TURNER.

Action for damages for cattle trespass.—The plaintiff, who is a farmer living on the North Road, claimed five pounds for damages done, by the trespass of 37 head of cattle alleged to be the defendant's, upon his, the plaintiffs landj before sunrise on the 10th instant. Plaintiff had demanded the amount, but defendant had refusedpayment. ..; y : ....... By Mr. Wyatt, who appeared for,defendant:—The cattle were branded T.S., and I can swear that the whole 37 belonged to defendant. There were more than 100 head on my land on that morning but the 37 I could swear to. ;

The defendant stated that the plaintiff had never demanded any damages from him for trespass, and also he was certain that the brand of, his cattle could not be distinguished at this-time of the year, owing to the length of hair on the beast, and that there were about 60 head on his run, over which he had no charge. . , David Main also deposed to the difficulty of recognizing the brands of the cattle for the reasons abovementioned, witness would not undertake to say that out of 60 or 100 head, 30 young stock could be identified by the brands. l By the Court—There are cattle on the run branded TS. They belong to Mr. Farmer.-1 found the cattle within about 20 chains of plaintiff's land, they were about 50 or 60 in number. There were two belonging to. Mr. Dufty. ; I did not notice any other which did not belong to the run. Judgment for plaintiff for £5 and costs.

There was a second claim also for a similar trespass upon 11th ult., for which judgment was . also, recorded for the same amount and costs.

"ASSAULT.—HUHST V. BEECHEY.

The complainant, a watchmaker, made the following statement :—About half-past seven oh the evening of the 29th ultimo, I was coming along Tuam Street with ,a friend, on the right hand side of the1 road towards the Royal Hotel. On passing the gat& of the house where I afterwards ascertained the accused lived, I was suddenly struck down by accused, who rushed out and hit me with his clenehedfiston the temple, and when on the ground I was kicked by him on the brow and other parts of my body, (witness here exhited marks of having received some very severe handling.) I had not spoken a word to accused before this ; he was followed by two women and another man, who scratched me and took part in the assault. I got up and asked for an explanation, and accused knocked me down again, and when I came to my senses I saw no one near. My clothes were torn to such a degree , that I had to go and borrow a pair of trowsers to go home in. . Thomas Eales sworn—l was .in company with last witness on the 291h ultimo. As we were passing the fence round the accused's house, several persons rushed out of the house and complainant > was knocked down, but I do not know by whom. I afterwards saw accused strike complainant on the temple.^ I was also struck myself. Complainant was quite sober. I did not see complainant speak to any person on the way home. _ Accused stated that in consequence of .information received from his wife he believed that complainant and last witness had insulted his wife, and that in his passion he knocked complainant down and themknocked him down again., ; Letitia Beechy, sworn—l am wife of accused. On Thursday last, between seven and .eight in the evening, oh,my way home, two men accosted me near the new school I did not answer them, but they still continued and I told them to go about their business. It was rather dark-at the time. They followedl me up to my own gate and I told my husband. He then ran out and struck the complainant. I did not distinguish the features of complainant, but there was no one else in the street at the time ; of this lam positive. I cannot say which of the two it : w.as who insulted me. When I met complainant and his friend they turned back after roe.

v Bateman Meren, sworn—l was at accused's hnuse on the 29th ult., when his ; 'wife came in and said she had been insulted by two persons in the street. Accused and myself went to the gate and we snw complainant and another person coming alousr. Accused charged them with insulting his "wife, tlio only reply was a sneer. Accused then struck one of them over the gate, knocking him down. The other ran away. Subsequently, complainant said it was not ho but his friend who had given the insult, „ •

The Court considered that the real facts of the case were difficult to arrive at, but that on the whole the evidence led them< to believe that the provocation complained of' had been given, though they were rather inclined to think that the heaviest punishment had not alighted on the party who most deserved it. The fine they should inflict for the assault would4>e therefore a nominal one, viz., 2s. 6d. and costs. . :