MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2652, 20 September 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M., and E. Elworthy, Esq., J.P.) . POLICE CASK. An inebriate was fined 5s for having been drunk and disorderly in the street. He had a sura of £53 and a cheque on him when picked up, CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default witli costa was given in the following cases : —Orrosby v R. A. Watt, £2 2s ; Houston v E. Green, £4 4s 9d ; and Pollock v. Stopplebien, £SO. Cuthbertson v Burgess Claim, £8 12s Id. Mr Hamersley for defendant.

Plain!iff entirely failing to prove bis case was granted a nonsuit, in order to permit him. to get further evidence if he could, he paying the defendant’s costs in this instance.

Farmers’ Co-operative Association v E. Smith —Claim, £lO 6s sd. £8 17s 8d was paid into Court. Mr White for plaintiff, Mr 0, Perry for defendant.

This was a dispute as to quantity of coal delivered on on order, to the defendant's account, into a truck at the railway station. The weighbridge tickets for the separate dray loads put in the truck totted up, according to plaintiff, to 6 tons 3 cwt 1 qr, but defendant sent the (ruck of coal to Temuka, had it weighed there, and found it to contain only 5 tons 6 cwt 7 lbs, J. Mair, the carter who filled the coal into the truck, said the weighbridge tickets were not made out at the bridge at the time of weighing, but at the yard, a little distance off, afterwards, the carter noting the weight of each load on paper, or keeping it in his memory until he returned to the yard again. In this ease a witness, the clerk who made out the tickets, showed that he made thorn out from a written memorandum supplied by the carter, the numbers being all on one slip of paper written in ink. The carter was recalled to settle the point, and he was inclined to think he did not put any of the weights down until he had finished loading the truck. The defendant, in his evidence, stated that he saw the loaded truck before it was despacted, and, from his experience, felt confident that there was not the quantity minuted to him by Mr Watkins. He estimated there wat a little over five tons, and he communicated with the consignee in Temuka, and had the coal weighed there. The trucks would only hold six tons when filled level with the top, and in this case there were considerable spaces vacant at each end. He first objected to Mr Watkins on the Tuesday following the Saturday on which the truck was forwarded, he having then received his consignee's corroboration of the lack of weight. W. Bass, stationmastar at Temuka, stated that the truck, which would hold six tons, was not filled. The truck was in the same state when taken in Jcharge by the consignee as when it arrived.

E. Brown, the Temuka consignee, proved the weighing of the coal in Temuka, with the result above stated. Mr Perry in addressing the Bench pointed out that the only evidence the plaintiff had as to quantity was that of the carter, and he might easily have made a mistake in giving the numbers to the boy, or the boy might have made an error in transcribing them. On the other hand the defendant bad the evi dence of several persons that the truck would only hold so much if filled, and that the truck was not filled.

Counsel having addressed the Court, the Bench gave judgment for the amount paid into Court only. They concluded from the evidence that the measurement had been short; the plaintiff’s case was dependent upon the carter’s memory, and there had been some negligence shown in making out the weight tickets, of which the plaintiff must accept the responsibility. No costs would be allowed, because the defendant should hare given notice that he was dissatisfied with the apparent quantity, and intended to have it weighed at Temuka. The Court then adjourned.