RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Monday, 18th May.

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 3, 19 May 1863, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Monday, 18th May.

Embezzlement. — William Isnor, charged with embezzlement of L 52 17s, the property of Edwin Legge. On the application of Inspector Weldon this case was adjourned till Tuesday, 19th inst. MORE CHARGES AGAINST THTC CAPTAIN OF THE SIR WILLIAM EYRE. C. Blakie was charged with, a breach of the immigration Act, 1855, in not having a sufficient supply of medicines and medical comforts placed under the charge of the medical officer on board the Sir William Eyre' bound from Glasgow to the Bluff. This case was adjourned till to-day from last week. Mr Macdonald appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr Harvey for the defendant. Dr Riley deposed that he was surgeon on board t.e em ; "rant sHp Sir William Eyre. T iere was a want of arrow-root, s go, and stimulants on board that v.,;gsl, for a consi-d-.-ble part of the voyage. There was a sv'lciency of medicines, but none of the former were placed at the disposal of ■witness. Attributed the mortality on board in a great measure to this cause, especially the want of arrow root and preserved milk for the food of infants. About ten deaths occurred before touching the Cape and seven deaths afterwards. When at the C .pc made a written application to the captain for a further supply of the articles wanting. (Witness here read a copy of the letter in question.) Never obtained any reply in answer to this application. Mr Harvey called Hugh Falkner, assistant purser, and Messrs J. Scott, J. Yates, J. r-rroll, B. Siewart, and J. Turnbull, passengers, for fie defence. These witne&rrs stated that they had received sufficient medical comforts.

The- Court said the case had been very clearly made out, — that "whatever was provided was not put under the charge of the medical officer as required by the Act, — there was not a sufficient supply of things needful. The medical officer had done his duty and not the slightest blame could be attached to him, as he had done the best that he could under the circumstances. A peculiar feature in this case was the want of common humanity on the master's part, who was clearly responsible for not obtaining the supplies required. Pined in the full penalty of LSO, or in default three months' imprisonment, with costs of L 3 and 445. C. Blakie, captain of the Sir William Eyre, was further chareed with not supplying a sufficient quantity of provisions according to the dietary scale on the contract, ticket. This charge included no less than sixtyfive indivudal cases. The Counsel ultimately r-rreed to decide he whole, by the judgment on one. Captain Elles deposed — That he was Immigration Officer, and had been authorised to lay the information on behalf of the passengers. A number of passer ers were next examined. The evidence agreed that nccidentally they found the supply of pork to the various messes deficient, to the extent of from i to § lbs. Afterwards it was deseovered that they had not their legitimate supply of water and that the other items of dietary scale were deficient. After hearing evidence and Counsel on both sides, His Worship gave judgment in iavor of the passengers ; the award being, onp-tenth of their passage money. Forty-nine steerage and sixteen intermediate passengers, we concerned in the result. crvn* cases. Power v. Sands- -Adjourned to Wednesday. Stock v. M'Kissock and M'Kissock v. Stock. —This, a cross-fire of actions, for alleged brepch of contract, damage laid at L2O. Mr M'Ponald for St-x:k and Mr Harvey for M'Kissock. James Stock depo ?d — That he entered into an f-reement with defendant, to deliver 6,500 bricks, two loprls of sand, and some machinery, for the sum of L2O, at the Saw Mills. When plaintiff had delivered the greater part •, the roads became so bad that he was obliged to ask d - fendant to repair them. Defendant sent away to help at the removal of a boiler, which plaintiff had not contracted to do, and would not pay him when he applied for the money. Peter Lermont corroborated plaintiffs evidence. Mr Harvey, for defence called, "Robert and John Murdoch, who deposed — that they suffered loss by their workmen remaining idle for want of material, through plaintiff's failing to deliver it when required. Also that there was verbal a roement to draw at least, one lond every day, which plaintiff had refused to do. In consequence of which it had cost defendant L 6 to come plete the delivery of the material. Judgment for plaintiff (deducting the set off of L 6), LU with costs.