Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1072, 11 May 1882, Page 2

The work of taking down the walls of Messrs Carr and Suns late buildings has commenced and good progress is being made with it. A meeting of the Committee of the East Coast Lands Association is convened for this (Thins lav) afternoon, for consideration of the various interests committed to their charge. Another large meeting of the unemployed has been held in London, at which resolutions were passed demanding from the Govennent that means s' ould be provided for assisted family emigration to Canada and the colonies. Mr W. F. Crawford invites tenders for 50 cords of tetoke, puriri, titree or kow ai firewood stacked in four-feet lengths on the brewery section, Aberdeen Road. Tenders will cluse at noon on Saturday, 13th inst. Further particulars may be obtained from the advertiser. As yet no further particulars 1 ave reached us of the mysterious assassination of Lord Frederick Cavendish, the newly appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Mr Thomas Haviland Bourke, Under Secretary, while walking in the Phoenix Park, Dublin. Thu perpetrators of the crime remain as yet undiscovered. To the courteay of Mr W. F. Crawford we are indebted for the receipt of a very fine sample of ale made from hops grown by Mr Gillice of Ormond. We quite agree with Mr Crawford’s remarks anent the increase of hop growing as a paying local industry. The sample of hops from Mr Gillice’s ground which we forwarded to Auckland for the inspection of Messrs. Ehrenfried, Hancock, and Seccoinbe, has produced a most highly favorable opinion. In thanking Mr C.awford, we can assure him that both his health and that of Mr Gillice was drank heartily at the Standard Office in this very excellent brew. The following letter accompanied the sample :— “ Dear Sir, —Allow me to present for your consideration a small sample of ale which owes its bitter entirely to local grown hops. I am happy, with your kind permission, to be able to publish the fact that the hop grown by Mr James Gillice, at Ormond, this season, commands more than the current market price quoted for the outside-grown article. Although the plantation is young, the yield is prolific and remunerative. Mr Gillice, with a generous liberality, expresses himself ready to assist any new beginner in op-growing, and from the admirable way he has cultivated and saved his crop, I would certainly advise our farmers to try a small plot under his guidance. Hop growing is an industry which, if carefully bandied, will in a few years rival the golden fleece in export value from the Port of Gisborne.—Yours, &c., W. F. Crawford, the Brewery, Aberdeen-road, May the 10th.”

By the iast San Francisco mail S.B’-9 letters, 910 books, and 10,656 newspapers were despatched. Ayoub Khan is at Teheran, in Persia, with a s.mill following, awaiting an opportunity to make a descent upon Afghanistan. Anti-Iris'i riots have taken place at Camborne, in Cornwall. The rioters desecrated I and wreck.•• I the Catholic Church of the town. , Much ex •itement has been occasioned at i Windsor by a threat wr.i -i) it is reported, hail i been made to destroy the barracks in that i town by an explosion. T.'.ree of the burglars, who some time ago ; abstracted a quantity of valuable jewellery ' from the Halton garden Post Office, London, ' have been captured in Berlin. They were on , the point of proceeding to Russia. The stolen ; diamonds have been recovered. An invitation Volunteer and Civilian R ill is to be held in Bruce's Hall, at Ormond, on t ! e i Queen’s Bi. thdav. Tickets, 10/6 each, can be obtained from Messis S. Caulton, M. Boland, W. E. Cooper, J. Harris, R. Bach, J. Campbell, and S. Liddell. Dancing is announced to commence at 8 p.m. sharp. A large attendance is confidently looked for as no effort will be spared tu make the undertaking a success. T.et them talk about a bull in a crockery shop. and speak uf the damage likely to ensue from bis vagaries, but we feel assured after the experience Messrs Crol’t and Ingle have had from a small dog in their ironmongery establishment they have no desire fora bovine vi.-iiui*. 11. appears that on .Monday evening last a small dug was locked up in the store and during the night became somewhat tired of his imp; isonment. In his efforts to get out l.e succeeded in oveiturning and breaking several lamps, globes, ami lamp chimneys, besides generally playing up old gooseberry with a number of other fragile a>ti les. It is said the firm intend to be very careful as to that dog’s whereabouts at during up time in future. It was the intention of one or two gentlemen here resident to have gone out. in the Bay vesterdav, with Ra Marky to make certain < f the existence or otherwise of ro- k Macky claims to have discovered. The boisterous weather, however, induced a postponement until the wind and se.i moderates. We need hardly say that we should be far better pleased to find that the danger dues not exist, t han Io find that it decs, hut in the intcres's of the | publi'* it becomes necessary that no doubt should remain on this point. 1' <* Harbormaster says Macky is wrong, while .’Um ky says he is thoroughly certain that he is not wrong and is able to point out the rock to the Harbormaster. One of them only can be right. Which of them is right must be clearly proved. We quotetl.e following from the Melbourne Lender-.— The Melbourne authorities have had ti.-e invoices of the goods recently seized by them translated, and the must deliberate falsification, it is said, was apparent in nearly everv line. Out of 170 cases said to contain sauces in the bills first presented to the Customs, 110 were described as spirits in the Chinese invoices, six packages entered as candlewick, were three of caudlewiek and three of tobacco, thirty packages of lily flour were five uf lily flour and twenty uf spirits of four gallons each, and thirteen packages of merchandise were three of inerch.andise and 10 packages uf tobacco, in nil 2Gcwt. The goods are now being examined by the Customs authorities, but, owing to the large quantity, th.is will be a matter of some time, zl rough estimate fixes the value at £lO,OOO and £si*,o'')o, s » that the revenue will receive an unexpected addition, if, as appears almost, certain f ile goods are to be sold. The officers of the department who are responsible have been called on to report how it. was I’, atprevious shipments were allowed tu land without being properly examined. B.M.’s Court, Gisborne. Tuesday, May 9. [Before M. Prick, Esq., R.M.] Winter v Rotaru.—An application for re-hearing by Mr Rees, on behalf of Rofapu, was refused. Mnllooly v. Te Hann : A similar application in this case was also refused. Allanach v. Comerford : Claim for .£ll Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, 19s. W. L. Rees, Wi Pere, and Kahiitia v. M. J. Gannon: Adjourned till the 16: h of May. McKay v. R. Cooper: Adjourned for 1.4 days. Dolbel and Renouf v Cuff: Claim £2O 10s, balance oF rent due. Adjourned for Major Westrup’s evidence. Oxenhatn v. Common: His Worship, after hearing much evidence in this case, said he would deliver judgment on Friday. Wednesday’, May 10. ALICE WILSON V. UNION COMPANY. Claim. £3l, value of a portmanteau and contents, lost in transit from A tickland to Gisborne by the L .S.S. Company’s Rotorua. Mr Rees appeared for plaintiff ; Nir Brassey for defendant. Alice M ilson, sworn, deposed : I am the plaintiff. 1 was a passenger by the Rotorua from A tick land to Gisborne 1 arrived here on Sunday morning. I had a carpet-bug, bonnet box, and the missing portmanteau. All arrived safely except the portmanteau. '1 here was a silk dress, a black merino dress, and small things. The portmanteau was worth about £2 ; silk dress, £l5 ; merino dress, £lO ; other articles, £1 10s. 1 1 ast snv portmanteau in the life-boat landing from the steamer. We landed at the boat harbor. 1 diil not see the luggage landed. I was told to go on and it would be all right. I crossed the river and came up in a cab. I got the other things. Have not got the portmanteau up to the present time. Every inquiry has been made. J paid for my passage. Cross-examined by Mr Brassey : The portmanteau was in the saloon with me. I am sure I saw it in the lifeboat. I wanted them to come ashore with me. I did not ask that they should. I do not know what became of the boat after I left it. My son sent for the luggage about an hour after. 1 have not been asked to describe the portmanteau. I asked a man to get the luggage ; he said it would ] be all right. I said at the boat-harbor | “What about the luggager’’ Some! one replied, “ It will be all right.” ' L. Hart, sworn, deposed: I am i agent for defendants’ Company in Gisborne. I recollect the Rotorua arriving here about a fortnight ago. I do . not know that the plaintiff was one of!

the passengers. Tickets are given on ! printed forms all the same. The end of the voyage frem Auckland is Gisborne—not the roadstead. I recollect Mr R. Wilson coming to my office re a missing package. I think that was on the 24th ultimo, Monday or Tuesday. 1 caused enquiry to be made for the portmanteau. 1 have not been able to find it. Cross-examined by Mr Brassey : The boat is obliged to land at the boat harbor in rough weather, when we think it unsafe to cross the bar. The lifeboat does not belong to the Compa uv. who pay for landing passengers for Gisborne. They may land in another boat if they like to pay for themselves. We give free tickets to Gisborne passengers to land by Kennedy ami Bennett’s boats. The boat I is not a luggage boat. Putting luggage i in a boat is under owners of luggage | personal supervision. People often | carry their luggage on board, and it is I under their own supervision until they I reach Gisborne. 1 have been here ! three wars. I never look after luggage that comes ashore in passenger boats. 1 do in cargo boats. I was told by Mr R. Wilson that it was a earpet portmanteau. I don’t know what that ! means. That was the only description . 1. got. ' Cross-examined by Mr Rees : When - passengers land at boat harbor, those i who want their luggage wait for it. If not, the boat people petit on the wharf. They should look after it. If not taken away in a reasonable time it is stored at the owner’s expense, in Kennedy and Bennett’s store. Anyone who likes may take their luggage from boat harbor. I Otherwise they get it taken round by

the boat to the wharf. We take no responsibility as to the custody of goods left on the wharf. 1 should probably leave any luggage on the wharf if not stored by Kennedy and Bennett. I was on board the boat on the day in question. Robert Wilson, sworn : I am son of plaintiff. I remember plaintiff coming to Gisborne two weeks ago. 1 went by her instructions to the wharf to look after the portmanteau on Monday. 1 searched and enquired of Kennedy and Bennett. They searched the store and said they could not find any. It was a carpet bag portmanteau bound with leather. Took every means to find it, and spoke to Mr Hart about it several times. I have not found it yet.

John Brunskill, sworn, said : I am a driver for S. Stevenson. I drove the plaintiff last month from the wharf to R. Wilson’s. I asked about her luggage. She said it was not on shore, and asked me to look after it, and bring it up when it came. This was on I he Sunday she arrived in Gisborne. She said two packages were addressed, and the rest not. 1 am in the habit of going to the wharf for passengers. The luggage is thrown on to the wharf. I was not on the wharf when the boat came in. My employer was. lam not sure that any one was there when the luggage was landed.

Mr Rees stated and Mr Brassey admitted that the portmanteau was properly directed. His Worship said that the liability of the Company as carriers did not cease until goods placed in their care were landed and delivered to their owners. The carriers were liable for negligence except where passengers contributed to it. The servants of the Company had plaintiff’s in their possession and the Company had contracted for its delivery in Gisborne and he could not look upon the boatharbor as a terminating point under that contract. The Company having hired the boat which land plaintiff at the boat-harbor, the boatmen must be considered as being in the Company’s employ, and the liability of the Company ilid not cease until the luggage was landed at the wharf. The liability was clear and he would give judgment for plaintiff for £2B 10s with costs of Court, £3 7s. The Magistrate said that no appeal was possible, as it was on a question of facts —not of law—that judgment was given.