RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4127, 12 June 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, June 11. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) Breaches of City By-laws.—Or. Sampson, J. Richardson, and C. Davis were charged, on remand, ■with having committed breaches of the municipal laws. The Inspector of Nuisances said the nuisance complained of had now been abated, and the charges were dismissed. An Accommodating Boatman. Grainey, was charged with carrying sixteen passengers in his boat, being four in excess of the number specified in his license. Defendant urged that he caiTiod the extra number merely to accommodate some passengers who were anxious to catch the City of Adelaide. The Bench dismissed the charge with a caution. Excessive Fare.—P. A. Reade, an expressman, was charged with making an excessive charge for the carriage of some bedding and other articles. Mr. Ollivier ajjpeared for the prosecutor, Mr. Huntley Eliott, and Mr. Buckley for the defendant, whose case "was this: One evening last week Mr. Eliott met him at seven o’clock, as he (Reade) was returning home, and asked him what he would charge to cany n quantity of bedding, See., to the barracks. The sum of 7s. 6d. was named, and Mr. Eliott agreed to pay that sum, though he thought it rather high. Apart from this phase in the case, the question involved in the dispute was whether the baggage was definable as “merchandise,” or “ passengers’ luggage.” According to the by-law, if the goods were “merchandise,” Reade would have been entitled to charge only 55., but if they were to be classed as “passengers’ luggage,” the sum which lie would be entitled to would bo 10s., these being the charges after seven o’clock at night. Reade, therefore, endeavored to hit the happy medium; but Mr. Ollivier contended that the bedding was not passengers’ luggage, and that it was past 7 o'clock when the defendant was hired. Mr. Buckley disputed both of these contentions, and ultimately the Bench ruled that the defendant was entitled to charge only ss. He was therefore fined 10s., and ordered to repay the overcharge of 2s. fid. Two other charges against the same defendant were dismissed. Civil Casks. Phelps v. Lee.—Claim, £i 13s. lOd. Judgment for amount and costs. J. M. Cleland v. Withers.—Claim, £7 10s. Judgment for amount and costs. jVI. S. Grace v. J. H. Williamson.—Claim £Z 7s. fid. Judgment for amount and costs. Pascoe v. Stratford.—Claim, £lB 14s on an I. (XU. The document came into the plaintiff’s hands through a third party in tbo course of business, but the Court held that an 1.0.TJ. was not a transferable document, and a nonsuit was entered, with costs. Williams (owner Anno Mclhuish) v. Strachan (master Golden Sea). —Claim of <£l for damage resulting from collision between the vessels, whilst the Golden Sea was being brought round to a berth in charge of a pilot. The Bench hold that the defendant could not bo held liable in such a case, and a nonsuit was recorded. Campbell v. Schultz.—Fraud summons case, arising out of a former action in which a ver-

diet was given for defendant. Tho present cose was brought to compel the plaintiff to pay the costs* arising out of the former case. An order was made for ss. a week : in default, one calendar month’s imprisonment. Tho Court then adjourned.