RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4488, 7 August 1875, Page 1 (Supplement)

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, August 6. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., E.M.) DRUNKENNESS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT.' Three inebriates were charged as above; one was dismissed with a caution, the other two were fined 10s. each, or in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. HABITUAL DRUNKENNESS. Charles Upton was charged as above. As there were several previous convictions against the defendant, the Bench sentenced the prisoner to one month's imprisonment, with hard labor. The Bench at the same time cautioned him that if he were brought up again on a similar charge, the Court would sentence, him to three months’ hard labor. BREACH OP THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT. Two cases under this Act were dealt with by the Bench; one was dismissed with a caution, in the other the defendant was fined 55., in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. DAMAGE TO FREIGHT. In this case E. W. Mills sued J. H. Eyne for £SO, being the alleged value of certain cases of glass consigned to complainant, and which were shipped from the port of London per William Duthie. Mr. Travers appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Allan for the respondent. E. W. Mills stated in evidence that fourteen cases of glass were consigned to him under the usual hills of lading. They came out by the William Duthie. The carter that he employed to bring the glass from the wharf drew Ins attention to one of the cases which, when moved, made a rattling noise. Caused the case to be opened, and found the glass to be broken to pieces. He had two cases opened in the presence of the surveyor. The glass had been well packed, and each sheet of glass had been packed separate from the others. The ordinary handling of the cases would not have caused the breakage. By Mr. Travers: The entries were passed by my clerk Mr. Fielder. The outward condition of the cases was good. The broken glass was valued at £l3. He did not instruct the carter to alter the receipt. Mr. Travers here pointed out an informality in the bills of lading, namely, that they were not indorsed, and observed that in strict law the cases of glass remained the property of the consignor.

The complainant observed that the agent of the consignor was in Wellington, and that they were shipped by Nathan and Co. of Loudon.

Mr. K. J. Duncan and another witness corroborated the evidence as to the state of the cases.

John Deacon deposed ; He was a public carter. He remembered fetching the cases referred to in this suit from the William Truing. He noticed that the contents of two of the cases rattled very much. Saw no external marks of damage. Brought them up to Mills. Asked him to examine them before they were taken off his dray. He brought them from No. 2 shed, not from the side of the ship. He gave a receipt. George Buck, storeman to Mr. Mills, remembered the two cases deposed to. Their outward appearance was good. Had one of them slung off the dray, and noticed that the contents rattled very much. This ended the plaintiff’s case, Mr. Travers, for the defence, said to establish this case against his client it would be necessary to prove culpable negligence on the part of the captain ; and he asked the Court to notice that the captain of a ship was only responsible for goods during the time that they were actually on board his vessel. He would produce witnesses who would prove that the cases in question were properly stowed, and that their outward appearance was perfectly good, and that therefore there was nothing which could fix the charge of negligence upon the captain, or take the case out of the exceptions set forth in the bills of lading. Eoyslen Walker deposed that he was second officer. Was present at the discharge of the vessel. The goods were taken out in a proper manner. No accidents occurred during the discharge. None of the cases were turned end over. They were removed on tracks. By Mr. Allan : They were wheeled from the after hatch to the main hatch. He did not hear any of the cases rattle. Captain Mundle, Piermaster, deposed : The goods and cargo were properly stowed on board the William Fming. By Mr. Allan : The captain previous to discharging cargo asked me to survey the vessel when she was off in the stream. His attention was not particularly directed to glass cases. Gases containing glass are always stowed on end, while other cases are stowed flatwise.

Mr. Backhouse, clerk to Messrs. Graham, deposed : The cases were slung on their edges. As some of them swung round heard the contents jingle. They then passed into his custody on the wharf. By Mr. Allan : They were not damaged while in his custody on the wharf. Mr. Travers, addressing the Bench for a nonsuit, said that he believed that the evidence he had brought before the Court proved iucontestihly that there was no negligence on the part of the captain, and also that no breakage had occurred when the goods were discharged from the vessel. The only presumption tenable was that they must have been broken before they were shipped. Mr. Allan ; The bills of lading in this case specify that the goods were shipped in good order. It is therefore impossible to assume that the goods in question were shipped in any other than in good condition, and therefore the captain is responsible for them. It is impossible to believe that the goods were originally packed iu this condition ; and it had been shown that they were not damaged since the vessel was discharged. He could, therefore, see no other course for the Court to adopt than to return a verdict for his client.

The Bench, in reserving judgment until this morning, said that there were at least two points in this case clearly proved. The first was that the goods were properly stowed ; the second was that the damage had not taken place since their discharge from the ship nor during the process; tire logical conclusion, therefore, appeared to be that the damage must have taken place during the shipping at London, or previous to it.| BREACH OP UtrOUXDINC; ACT. J. Bartlett v. W. Smith.—ln this case the defendant impounded certain of plaintiff’s sheep which had strayed on to his laud, and he now sought compensation. The Bench, in giving a verdict for the plaintiff, said that he had acted illegally, inasmuch as by the Impounding Act any person finding stock straying on his land is bound to give notice to the owner before he takes upon himself to impound. There were ten other cases of no particular interest.