R.M.’s Court, Gisborne.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1075, 18 May 1882, Page 2

R.M.’s Court, Gisborne.

Wednesday, 13th May. [Before M. Phice, Esq., R.M.] Burgess v. Caulton. —Mr Turton applied for costs. The amount had been paid into court, and notice as required by Section 44 of “ Resident Magistrates’ Act ” had been given. The money was paid in yesterday, and the notice received this morning. Mr Nolan, for defendant, objected to costs being allowed, as one of the witnesses had only received his eubpasna this morning, when the Clerk of the Court knew that the money had been paid into Court. The Magistrate said that was perfectly possible. The Clerk of the Court had so many onerous duties to perform that the fact of payment into Court might easily have escaped his notice. He would allow plaintiff 10s., and one witness 10s., or £1 in all. Oxenhatn v. Common was then called

for judgment. Mr Brassey for plaintiff, and Mr Finn (in the absence of Mr Rees) for defendant.

Mr Brassey said that since the hearing in this case, Mr Davis, rhe arbitrator for defendant, had drawn his fee of £5 ss.

His Worship remarked that Mr Davis had probably followed the prin-' ciple of “ a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush." The Resident Magistrate said he had given this case his most careful consideration, and had considered the pros and cons of the evidence searchingly. The first point, raised for the defence was that the defendant had been excluded from the arbitration, but the evidence tended to contradict this, and showed that he (defendant) could, if he chose, have entered the room where the arbitration was being carried on. That objection, therefore, could not be sustained. With reference f o the point raised as to closing the doors of the room in which the arbitration was held, he saw’ nothing to prevent such a course, as the defendant could have entered had he so wished. Arbitration Courts might be classed in the saute category as R M. Courts when the Magistrate is hearing an ex parte statement. He must therefore decide against this point as raised by the counsel for defendant. Another point had been raised by the other side, viz., that the defendant had communicated with his principal as to the proceedings which were going on in the Arbitration Court. Here he thought both sides were to blame. The award should not have been made known until it had been properly drawn up by the Arbitrators. The evidence was contradictory, but lie thought the weight of it was against defendant. Regarding the point raised as to Mr Davis’s not having read Oxenham’s contract, the evidence was contrary to defendant. Mr Nolan had ample opportunity of cross-examining Mr Oxenham when he gave evidence before the Arbitrators. It was clearly shown that on the 27th of January the document was lost; but it was also clear that the meeting was adjourned to the 3rd February, and that Mr Davis knew it, but he had gone to Napier, and neglected the meeting at which the award was drawn up. After careful consideration of the circumstances, as shewn by evidence, he was of opinion that certain irregularities had crept into the arbitration, but looking at the question in the abstract, he must go below the surface in order to arrive at an equitable decision, and get at the root of the transaction. His decided opinion was “ That the evidence did not disclose any corrupt motives or bias on the part, of the Arbitrators, and was certainly in favour of plaintiff for the amount claimed, £52 13s. 6d., for which he would give, judgment with costs, £8 9s.

Mr Brassey, on behalf of the Union S.S. Company, applied for a re-hearing of the case of Mrs. Wilson v. the Union S.S. Company, which was heard last Wednesday, and in which the RM. gave judgment against the Company for £2B IDs. and costs. He considered he was entitled to a re-hearing on the following grounds, viz.; —That the applicants have, since the hearing of the said ease, obtained information that the box or portmanteau mentioned in the plaintiff's particulars of claim was never placed under the control of the defendants, and was never placed on board the lifeboat which the plaintiff stated she came from the steamer to the shore in. He had several witnesses to prove that the portmanteau in question was never put on board the lifeboat. It had been shewn by Mrs. Wilson’s evidence, which was most reliable and worthy of credence, that the portmanteau in question had been placed on board the steamer, but it had never been proved that this had been done by any of the Company’s servants, and it was quite in accordance with his view of the case that the luggage had been taken on board by the plaintiff herself, and that she had taken full charge of it. Mr Rees contended that it had been proved that the portmanteau was put on board the steamer, and it had never been denied that it was placed in the lifeboat until now.

The R.M. said : If you can prove to tne Mr Brassey that the portmanteau was never put on board the steamer, and that none of the Company’s people assisted in so put ingiton board, then 1 shall consider that you have good grounds for a re-hearing; but until you do so I cannot entertain your ap plication. You should have raised these points at the time the case was heard, and you were offered the option of appealing against, tny decision, although in one of the newspapers it is stated that 1 refused to allow you to appeal. 1 did not do so Mr. Brassey, but told you that you could appeal on a question of law, but you said that as it was a question of facts you considered there was no appeal. 1 mentioned that on the point of law there could be an appeal, but not on a question of facts. 1 may also state 1 was quite of opinion that there had been gross negligence shown by the company, and ruled in that direction.

Mr. Rees thought no further evidence was producible by the company. They were doubtless liable, as they had taken the property under their control.

His Worship said that he was of opinion that even supposing the luggage had never been put on board the lifeboat, if it had been placed, as he was quite certain it had been, on board the steamer, the company were

yet responsible. He must refuse Mr. Brassey‘a application. Fraser v. Mclntosh : Damage done by sheep. Mr McDougall for plaintiff, Mr Brassey for defendant. Judgment for defendant, with costs. Rees and others v. Gannon: Adjourned for one week. Mullooly v. Caulton; Adjourned for one week.