RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume I, Issue 89, 16 February 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, February 14. y (Before Major Turner, R.M.) Civil Cases. MAGUIRE V. COTTIER (A MAORI). To recover the sum of £lo Is Bd, for goods supplied. Defendant pleaded indebted, and promised to pay £2 on account and tli'o balance at his convenience. Verdict, for amount, £5 to be paid within a week : in default, two mouths’ imprisonment. MAGUIRE V. LIPMAX. To recover £2 3s 7d. No appearance ofdefendant. Verdict for amount claimed with costs, TAPLIN V. GIBSON. To recover the sum of 4s fid, being amount df charges} paid under protest by plaintiff to defendant for storage of three and a : half tons of cargo, alleged by plaintiff to have been illegally imposed, the defendant failing to deliver the goods to plaintiff or ins agent, although applied to during the day pi'the steamer's arrival, and stored by him without tho least necessity.

S. Taplin deposed—On Friday, the 28th January last, (he p.s. Tongariro arrived alongside Milroy’s timber jetty from Wanganui, having on board 3-1 tons of general cargo for me, amongst which were 8 casks of biscuits, 5 of which wore sold, to arrive, to Mr Cicely, Government surveyor, who together with a party ot 14 men, had been two days waiting for their arrival. Immediately mi the steamer's arrival, I went on board, and requested Captain Gibbons to put at least four casks of biscuits in the canoe which he had brought up for tho survey parly from "Wanganui, which was discharged, and lying alongside the jetty. Gibbons said he would do so. On coming ashore, 1 saw Cicely and told him what arrangements I had made, when, in reply, ho said that he > feared that the weather was too rough to put file biscuits in the canoe, and that I had butter have them sent up to my store. I saw Gibbons again, and asked him to he kind enough to send the hiscnils up to my store, instead of putting them into the canoe, which lie had promised to do. Messrs Smith, Keys, and Snook are my general and standing agents when vessels are discharging cargo. They havj verbal and written orders to cart, and sign for any or all of my goods, from time to time and that their receipt should be sufficient for same. Defendant, as agent for the steamer, and Mr Hirst as proprietor of the Patea wharf, have both received veihal and written orders that the above named carters are my agents, and had power to receive and sign for all my goods from time to time, which for the lasi seven years have been carried out up to the time in question. If agent or wharfinger hare any change to make after seven years practice in the conducting of their business they should both morally and legally be compelled to give each consignee written notice to that elf ct instead of imposing an illegal charge. I waited till between three and four o’clock, when I saw Smith, the carter, and asked him why he did not bring up my goods. He said that lie could not get them without an order, which 1 at once gave him and also 3s in case he needed it. 1 saw him again about fi o'clock an 1 asked him where my goods wore? He said that Mr Gibson had put them in his store, and had gone away with the key. and Would not deliver them (ill (be following day. Such a course, your worship, is against all usage of shipping and wharf regulations, and quite the reverse to the custom of this port. Such a thing never occurred during flie whole time the steamers or sailing vessels had buen'discharging at Hirst’s wharf. It is the law and custom in all British ports where there are wharves that w hen ’a vessel arrives, for the captain or agent of the same to give each consignee written notice that certain goods are lying on the wharf or beach, and if not removed by a certain hour they will be warehoused or re-ship-ped at his or their expense and risk, which notice defendant failed to give, but snapped up my goods directly he saw a chance, ; ut them in the store, locked the door and went away with the key. Captain Gibbons remarked, that he had never taken the key away like that before, hut had loft it with him, and if he (Captain Gibbons) had had flie key in the evening he said that he would liavn delivered the goods at ouco to me. I had my own horse and cart in my yard the whole day standing doing nothing, but, I never interfere with carters whose living depends on carting, either by carting my own goods or any other persons, but had I known such a trap were awaiting me I certainly should have broken the rule on that occasibh rather than suffer the inconvenience which I’ did. I consider defendant is venting his spleen upon me, and at the expense of tho owners of the Tongariro. Ever since he ba’s had the agency, he lias made it a point of annoying - me in every way lie pbssibly could, so much so in fac that I am compelled to prepty my freight in Wanganui in’ order ,to prevent defendant having any legal claim upon my goods, with the exception of taking a receipt from rrie. There was no claim upon the goods in 'question; freight having been paid in Wanganui. The morning following I sent ray man down with my own horse and cart for the goods, but defendant would not deliver them until he had been paid 4s Gd for storage, which was paid to him. He would not give a receipt for the money. I served my time to the sea as a ; mariner, and have been master of a vessel on tiie New Zealand coast. I thoroughly understand the duties of a shipper, con- ; signee,wharfinger,and shippingagent. Was’ ' sub-wharfinger in Auckland for one year, where the duties are probably defined. If defendant had had the same experience he would not have committed the gross blunders and errors which he now does in connexion with Ins agency. 1 may state that I have brought this question forward more as a matter of principle than personal feeling for the paltry amount in dispute. I regret to feel convinced that personal feeling against me has influenced defendant in the course lie has pursued—not only in this case,', but on several

Plaintiff was submit tod to a lengthened cross-examination by defendant, but as the information e.icitod had no direct bu».ring upon the case in point, and a good deal of it being a repetition of plaintiff s evidence, wo deem it 'inadvisable to reproduce it. Daniel Smith, cartin’, deposed that he had been in the habit of carting’ goods from the wharf fur the last three years, and that he had received both written and verbal instructions from plaintiff to cart ills goods. He had not experienced any difficulty in carrying out these instructions until quite recently. On the2Bth January he applied to Gibson for Taplin’s goods, and was informed that lie was too late. It was within working - hours when lie applied for delivery of the goods, lie had received a special writ ten order, and handed it I.oGibson. During the tilin' the steamer was in the habit of discharging ar Hirst’s wharf, lie could obtain goods at any hour—in I’ac.t, ho had secured loading up to as late as twelve o’clock at night. Cross-examined by defendant : It was about 4 o'clock when I received the special order from Taj)'in, I gave the order to you in town. On my return to the wharf, I obtained a load, but found that Taplin’s goods had l> >en warehoused. I had orders to receive goods for Messrs Dale, Dascnl, and Left on fhe day in question, but it was utterly impossible for me to take delivery of them and cart them away within your prescribed working hours. I sign for goods as agent for the consignees who employ me. to curt. By the Pencil ; I hold a general authority from Taplin to receive the or part of his goods. I was accompanied*’ f by Mr Cie.i.lly when I went down for the biscuits, but-1 could not obtain tiio.nv and had to take another load. It is not usual for the wharfinger to close his warehouse at 4or u o'clock in the afternoon. This is an exceptional case. Thor are no particular hours laid down. James Hirst deposed—l am the proprietor of the Paten wharf, and have acted as wharfinger for the past four years. In consequence of vessels arriving at all hours, it has always been (he custom to discharge cargo to suit arrangements for out-going freight. It has always been my duty to lake charge of cargo not removed by four o’clock, but I had made it a point to acquaint consignees that all goods warehoused would be liable to storeaga charges, but had never exacted these dues, except under very peculiar circumstances. I have not experienced any difficulty whilst acting in the position of wharfinger, and 1 am at a loss to understand why I have been called as a witness, unless it is to establish the usages of this port. I would have been prepared to deliver plaintiff’s goods upon application at any reasonable hour, and would not, in any case, have warehoused them without first acquainting plaintiff. As proprietor of the wharf, 1 have always recognised the regular carters as being authorised to receive plaintiff's goods, and always accepted their receipt for delivery.

Cross-examined by defendant—l hive admitted that if goods were not removed by a certain ionr. i would be justified in taking every due care of them by warehousing. By the Bench.—l am a duly-licensed wharfinger by the General Government. As a wharfinger, i only give, and take receipts for goods consigned to my care. [The defendant here essayed to explain the meaning of witness’s words to the Bench, when witness retorted by saying that he was answering tho Bench, and did not require the assistance of an interpreter.] After defendant was suppressed by the Deucli, wini -ss ninrfnned —I have only been in fhe habit of warehousing goods consigned to me or handed over to me by the captain or agent. By plaintiff—l certainly would not have bundled all goods discharged at 4 o'clock into my warehouse. I consider that I havo no legal 1 right to charge for the storcage of goods handed over to me by the captain or agent: of a vessel, unless the goods were special gned to me, the warehouse being erected on my own private properly. I. have worked up fill 11 (.’clock at night, .and was always prepared to do so so long as the carters were willing to work. The plaintiff called upon John Gibson to give evidence on his behalf, The defendant expressed doubts as to,plaintiff’s right to his services in that capacity, and it was not until assured by the Bench as to plaintiff's right, to cull upon him that he yielded to the, invitation, John Gibson, examined by plaintiff, deposed—l have no right or title to either the wharf or warehouse where tho p.s. Tongariro now discharges cargo. The Bench —That settles the question so far as this Court is concerned. It being a question of title, feared that tho settlement of the ease would not conic within the jurisdiction of that Court, and would, therefore, adjourn the case, for fourteen days, with a view of ascertaining how far the Court had power to deal with the case, and considered that it was more a question for the Supreme Court of Taranaki to’ determine/ , , The defendant handed up a small piece of blue paper to the Bench, signed John Milroy, which he, in his simplicity, contended conferred an authority' upon him to impose wharfage and other charges on goods landed on the wharf in question, but, the Bench declined to regard the authority in the same light as defendant.