R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 243, 24 September 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) YESTERDAY. J. W. Wade v. U.S.S. Co. Mr. Brassey for plaintiff. Mr. Seivwsight for defendant. Mr. Brassey stated that this was an action brought to recover from the defendant company, who were common carriers, the sum of £6 15s. It appeared that some goods of glass were shipped on board the Company’s boat at Dunedin for this place, and during the transit of the goods they became damaged to the extent of the amount claimed. The plaintiff deposed as to the following facts. That he received the goods in question in a case from a carter named Poole, and found on opening the case that some of the goods contained therein were considerably damaged. He got Mr. Townley to look at the case, who said in the presence of theU.S.S. Co.’s agent, that the case was packed well enough to be carried safely around the world. He had not given a receipt for those goods. To Mr. Seivwright—Anybody carried his goods from the wharf to his shop. The carter stated to him that the box was damaged at one corner before taking it on his cart. The shipping note he received with the case must have been burned. Mr. J. Townley gave evidence to the effect that the case was carefully packed and did not apper to be damaged on the outside. If the case was to fall flat on a roller it would cause the damage complained of. T. C. Mulcaster stated that he saw the case in question, which was considerably damaged on the outside.

J. Lambie, agent of theU.S.S. Co., remembered the case in question coming here by one of the Company’s boats. The case in Dunedin would be handed to the railway officials for transmission to Port Chalmers, and then placed on the boat. A receipt had been given by Kennedy & Bennett for the delivery of the case in good order and condition. Mr. Sievwright said he must ask for a nonsuit, as the plaintiff had not proved a contract with the Company nor the delivery of the goods, and until he had done that and properly charged the Company with the goods he was not entitled to the claim. He submitted that it was quite clear that there was no proof that the damage was caused by the Company, even assuming that the goods were sent by the boat, because it might have taken place in the transmission between Dunedin and Port Chalmers. Another thing which supported his argument was that the conditions on the shipping note stated the Company would not hold themselves responsible for the breaking of glass, &c. There were four things the plaintiff had to do—first, to prove that the defendant was a common carrier ; second, the delivery of the goods for conveyance and the contract if special; third, the loss and injury; fourth, the damage. That was laid down in Rosco’s Evidence, and the plaintiff in this case had not complied with it. He held that the whole thing hung on the prouf of a special contract between the two parties.

Mr. Brassey replied that the shipping note only showed that after the goods were received at Port Chalmers they were forwarded on by the defendant company, who had to deliver them. It was not for the plaintiff to show where the goods were damaged.

In reply to his Worship, Mr. Brassey said it was not for them to show that the goods were received by the plaintiff in good order, but it was for the defendant to show that the goods were not shipped in good order and condition. He argued that the defendants themselves had admitted the special contract.

His Worship, after hearing the arguments on both sides, did not consider himself justified in granting the application for a nonsuit, and he advised that the case should stand adjourned in order to allow the production of the shipping papers showing the contract.

Both parties agree! to this, and the case was accordingly adjourned for a fortnight, costs to abide the issue.

THIS DAY. Forgery. Watene Otutu was again brought up this morning charged with forging a certain dec<l purporting to be a lease of the Rotokautokc Block from Watene Teiri to the Southern Cross Oil Spring Co., and to have been signed by the said Watene Teiri contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided. The Sergeant applied for a further remand for a week, as he was still unprepared to proceed with the case. Mr. Watson for the accused did not object to the application provided bail was allowed. Native bail was allowed, viz., £5O in himself and two sureties of £25 each. Larceny. William Leßas was charged with the larceny of a gold ring, a pair of sleeve-links and two books, valued at 355., the property of Thomas Thompson, on the 13th of September last. The Sergeant applied, under the 17th section of the B.M. Act, to withdraw the charge for the present as the chief witness was not to be found, and he believed that the witness was interested in keeping out of the road. It was impossible for them to find him at present, and he considered it was a pity to keep a young lad like the accused in prison on that account, therefore he would ask for leave to have the charge withdrawn until the evidence in question could be obtained. The application was granted. [Left Sitting.]