RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4472, 20 July 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, July 19. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., Tt.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Pour men were fined for having been drunk and incapable on Saturday. STEVENSON AND STUART V. BROWN. This was an action brought by Messrs. Stevenson and Stuart, merchants, against Captain Brown, of the Hannibal, to recover the sum of £ll Bs. for the non-delivery of twelve casks of cement in good order and condition, according to bill of lading made 10th February, 1875 ; also, to recover a further sum of’ £7 10s. for non-delivery of a case of glass in good order and condition, according to bill of lading, made Ist February, 1875. Mr. Allan for plaintiffs, and Mr. Travers for defendant. The plaintiffs’ case having been opened, Mr. Allan called J. W. Stevenson, who proved that he was a partner in the firm of Stevenson and Stuart. A quantity of cement had been ordered from England, and was shipped in the Hannibal, as per bill of lading produced. On the arrival of the Hannibal at Wellington the goods were discharged, but in such bad condition that the carter refused to take them from the wharf. He (witness) went to the wharf and saw the cement landed, twelve barrels of which were in bad order. The damage appeared to have been occasioned by the barrels having been steeped in water ; they were quite wet. Took Messrs. Levin and A. F. Stuart to effect a survey, which they did in the presence of the captain. A case of glass appeared to have been broken out by a crowbar, or through having been violently thrown down. The lid was cracked and partly raised ; he believed there was not a whole pane inside. By Mr. Travers : Had not opened the case. Defendant offered ss. a cask to settle matters, but the firm refused. Offered to take 10s,, though that would not pay the firm. David Thomson Stuart gave corroborative evidence. W. H. Levin proved that he had examined the cement and found ten or twelve barrels damaged. The case of glass was damaged He would have refused to take delivery of the glass. A. P. Stuart proved that he had made a survey of the cement. The casks were discolored on end or side with an oily liquid which could be scraped off. Detected no evidence of salt water. The casks seemed to have been lying in an oily substance for some time. The case of glass appeared to have been damaged by a crowbar. C. J. Worth, a plasterer, proved that he had examined the cement; he bored a cask.

The cement seemed as if it had been in some liquid; there was a defined line of mark. He attributed the damage to had stowage.' Por the defence, J. Handle, piermaster, proved that he had seen the cement on board. He attributed the damage to the dashiug about of bilge-water. Cross-examined: Had been twenty-six years at sea.

James Campbell, a stevedore, proved that he had been unloading the vessel and discovered the state in which the cement was; the casks were well stowed. He attributed the damage to the dashing of the bilge-water. Captain J. Brown proved that the ship had passed through very heavy weather. The pumps were always regularly attended to. He attributed damage to the splash of the bilgewater. The case of glass was not injured by handling; the appearance of the case showed that the injury had been caused by the glass having been improperly packed; the end was split outwards. That was the case for defendant.

The Resident Magistrate then expressed a willingness to go and see the goods. This was agreed to, and the parties left the court. On his return Mr. Crawford gave his decision. He referred to the difficulty of ascertaining the actual cause of damage in such cases as this. Some time since he had had before him a case in some points similar to the present action. The claim in that case was for damage done to a parcel of nails, and the kegs were brought into court. Each keg had a distinct line upon it, evidently caused by the kegs having stood in water for a considerable time, and below this mark the nails in the kegs were cemented together with rust, whilst those above the mark were perfectly free from injury. He had considered that fact as clearly showing the nails had been allowed to stand in water, and therefore gave judgment for the plaintiff. In the present case, however, it was different, and from the evidence given, coupled with the appearances he had noticed on the casks, lie had arrived at the conclusion that the damage had been occasioned by the splashing of the bilge-water, which came under the head of “dangers of the sea.” With regard to the case of glass, he thought the ship responsible for the damage done. It appeared to him that the damage had been done, not by the use of a crowbar, as stated, bnt by careless stowage, and he should give judgment for plaintiff, on that portion of the claim, for £7 10s., with costs.