MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2359, 8 October 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.,) breach of thk municipal corporano NS ACT. James Bruce was charged with a breach of the Muncipal Corporations Act, 1867. Mr A. Perry appeared for the Borough Council. The defendant, who did not appear, was charged with failing to comply with the Building Regulations in not substituting brick for wood and iron in buildings on his section 15, It will be remembered that the defendant was some time back summoned for a similar offence, the sections then mentioned in the information being Nos. 16 and 17. The defendant then pleaded that his buildings were only on the one section, No. 16, and on this ground the case was dismissed. The Council appealed and the Magisterial decision was upheld. Philip Dale, building surveyor for the borough of Timaru, deposed to having served a notice on the defendant in 1878 warning him to comply with the building regulations. He had not yet complied with them. The buildings were standing on section 15, and on a small portion of section 16. Some further evidence having been given, His Worship said he could not understand the defendant in a case like this allowing it to go by default. He should inflict a line of £5. A BUI.L AT LARGE. Wylie v. Gosling. In this case the plaintiff summoned the defendant for allowing his bull to be wandering at large. Mr C. Perry appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Ilamcrsly appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff stated that he was manager for Mr Russell, and on Sept. 17 last he found the defendant’s bull loose in Mr Russell’s paddock, in which a number of cows were grazing. The bull was impounded. The defendant was lined 20s and costs. CIVIL CASES. In the following civil cases judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs : Deputy Commissioner of Land Tax v. S. Butler —Claim 8s 4d ; Same v. Sarah Bruce—Claim £4 9s 7d ; Same v. Peter Pringle—Claim 8s 2d. Graham v. D. Lynch, Claim £7. Mr White for plaintiff; Mr C. Perry for defendant. A. Graham stated the defendant bad been in his service about 6 weeks at £1 per week ; he had been using the Cambridge roller, and had “ smashed it up” in using it, and it had cost £4 to repair it. Had sustained further loss. The roller was away being repaired for three days, and five horses were kept idle in consequence, £1 a day for the time of the horses was a reasonable charge. The horses were safe and steady, and no one could wish for quieter animals. The defence was that the defendant was working with a young horse and the roller was injured by coming in contact with the stump of a cabbage tree.

His Worship thought there was no case against the defendant. It was in fact a question whether the plaintiff had not been guilty of contributory negligence in allowing the stump of the cabbage tree to remain in the field. Judgment would be for defendant with costs.