MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 108, 6 May 1880, Page 4

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[Before A. J. Richmond, S. Kingdon, and P. Donald, Esqs., J. J.P. YESTERDAY. J. P. Cooee v. Mantok. This was a fraud summons on which the plaintiff applied to the Bench to order the defendant to pay tho sum of £5, for which he had previously obtained judgment. The dc fendant said that he had not had the means to pay. Tbe plaintiff said that the defendant had informed his clerk that he had £t's to come to him* The defendant said, Yep, ho had a good many ninety-five pounds to come, but they bad never ootne. He also stated that he had filed a declaration of insolvency. Their Worships said that under the oircumstances they cpuld not make an order. TbttSTEES of Sed&wick and Gowiand V. Bowse (Hokitika). Claim for goods supplied to tbe amount of £8 12s lOd. Mr Fell, who appeared for the plain! iff", said the defendant had paid £3 on. account, and judgment was entered for the balance with costs 30s. Same y. F. Stbateobd. Mr Fell appeared for the plaintiffs in this case also. The amount of the claim waa £8 Is lid, but the defendant Baid he was not aware whether he owed the money or not, for he had had no account of six or se von years, it and he had not had time to look np his for receipts. In answer to Mr Fell, he said he told him that if he owed the money he would pay it in three months Their Worships gave judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs £1 14s:

[Before S. King-don and P. Donaid, Esqa., U JJ.P.] H. Staibobd v. Richmond. Mr Pitt fer the plaintiff and Mr Fell for the defendant. The plaintiff claimed £13 6a 9d I for certain piga supplied to the defendant, and for other items of account, amongst which were somo for wool shorn from plaintiff's sheep by defendant's servants. The defendant admitted certain of the items amounting to SA 17a 4d, and as to the rest a good deal of evidence was taken, at the conclusion of which tbe matter remained 6o complicated that not only were the learned counsel endeavoring to elucidate matter?, but tbe parties to the suit, and the witnesses were each explaining matters to the evident amusement j>f each other ; and what was evidently looked upon as a good joke, was ultimately settled by the Bench awarding the plaintiff £7 6s 9d, with coats £2 6s. Tease v. Hale. Mr Pitt for the plaintiff, and Mr Acton Adamß for the defendant. This was an action to recover the sum of £19 5s made up as follows : — Value of a hoiso, alleged to have been so seriously injured by the negligence of the defendant's servant that it was found necessary to destroy it, £18 ; fee paid to veterinary surgeon, 10s ; oartage, &c, of the carcase, 153. The ccb'on arose out of an accident which occurred in Collingwood street recently, when a horse, ridden by a boy in the employ of Mr Trask, was struck by the shaft of a trap driven by Mr Hale, nndwhich shaft, entering the animal, so seriously injured it tfcat it was found necessary to shoot it. Mr Pitt having opened the caso called . W. Mille, the lad who rode the horee in question, who deposed that he was riding up the left hand side of Bridge s'reet, about three yards from the kerbing, and when opposite Mr Chisbolm's shop he went straight "across te Mr Phillips's in order to go along Collingwood street. Rothwell, who was driving Mr Hale's cart, was opposite Mr M'Gee's, and he turned straight towards Mr Phillips's. He (witness) then tried to get past before he got there*

but he did not succeed, and the right hand shaft struck his hofse. When he got off the horse he waß close to the kerb. He beard some people say that Eothwell was on his wrong side, but Eothwell said he was not. He took the horse to Mr Trask's, and after the veterinary surgeon had seen ib it was shot. Thore was plenty of room for Eothwell to have got out of his way. In cross-examination he said that Botaetimes the horse was very difficult to pull up. Franoiß Trask deposed that the horse was seven years old, and had cost him £23 three years ago, and ho valued it afc Ibo time of tho accident at £20. It had also cost him 10a for fee to veterinary surgeon, and 15a for carting, etc. Henry Whiting deposed that he saw the occurrence, and be described tho accident. H. V. Phillips wns the next witness called, and he was oxarninod at considerable length. Ho gave it as his opinion that the accident was owing to the boy's fault, but he said he did not know much about horses. In crossexamination, he said that there was plenty ef room for the boy to have gone on either side of Rothwell, and he said he considered Rothwell a very careful, prudent man. John Pratt was then called. In crossexamination he expressed his opinion that it would have been the safer course for the boy to have gone close round by M'Q-ee's, instead of on the left-hand side of the road ; but in answer to the Bench, he said that if the horse was in the habit of cutting the corners too closely, he should have gone across to the left. He valued the horse at about £12, but he said he had never examined the horse closely. T. Hunt, veterinary surgeon, deposed as to the injury sustained by the horse, and said there was no chance of saving ita life. He valued the horse at about £18 or £20. He considered the boy kept the right side of the road. James Lucre, manager of the Hardy street stables, valued the horse at between £15 and £20, and be said that if the cart, driven by fiothwell had nob turned tho boy waa right in crossing as he did. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Acton Adams then opened the case for the defendant, and contended that all the negligence was on the part of plaintiff's boy he called Joseph Rothwell, who deposed that ho had been in the employ of Mr Hale for 19 years. He said he waa driviag the cart at a jog trot, and was on his right side of the road and was on the point of turning into Bridge street, towards the \Nbrmanby bridge, when the accident ooourred. When he first saw the boy, ho was going at a canter ; he did not appear to be making fo? any side, and he went right across, towards witness, and came on the shaft. There was plenty of room on M'Q-ee's side for him to have passed. The boy had told him his horse was a regular terror, and very hard to pull round corners, aud he said he pulled him round with all his might, but could not pull him round. In cross-examination, he said that Mr Field, . «vho was a witnes3 of the accident, told him that it was his fault. It was impossible for him to have pulled up. He had told the boy he would get him a situation if he could. Paul Pike, who described himself as one of the unemployed, deposod that he was pitting oq the steps of the Temperance Hotel, and saw the accident. He said there waa plenty of room for thfl boy to have passed Rothwell on either side. He should have gone on M'Q-ee's side if he had been in the boy's place, but he thought the boy was going to speak to Rothwell, for he rope straight to his horse's head. Counsel having addressed the Bench Their Wohships, after a short retirement, gave judgment for the plaintiff for £16 5s and costs £3 sa.