UNKNOWN MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 80, 11 August 1863, Page 3

UNKNOWN MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■:, Tuesday, 4th .August. before M. Price,' Esq., 3. P.) I CIVIL CASES. -- iHleton v'Brunton.-Kemanded till to!f to enable plaintiff to prove service gSSSSSs wmms Jhich W as refused by plaintiff., Judgfor plaintiff with costs. ,_ ; Donald v. Wilson and M'Donald y. I --Both these cases were remanded |kt day on the application of Mr ilor'v Wilson and Co.-Claim for rent Ms bonded in plaintiff's store on ac°>of defendants. Mr M'Donald for the tiff. Defendant objected to one item of £T W ei"hin" the goods, and in | ? For the defence, it was contended %^h a diaree was not customaiy. lent for ISSiff, deducting the item eighing. Wednesday, sth August. Tjirc-Clement Johnson, out on bail, Erned on the information of Constable daVwith this offence. Not appearing, ail 6£2) was forfeited. Civil Cases. Elliottv. Calderand Co.-Claim for Li>o £vey for plaintiff, Mr McDonald for dant. Verdict beiug given for L4O, with Middleton v. W. Burton.-~Claim for 28 Verdict for plaintiff, with costs. Donald v Wilson.-The plaintiff m this ri an able seaman on board the T. E. ,U e sought to recover £100 damages the captain for alleged cruelty, ill-usapp, luring the voyage from Glasgow to the f From the evidence of plaintiff, it aped that whilst in the discharge of his • without nny apparent cause, he ''on several occasions, put in irons imprisoned; that, subsequently, in ecmerice of such ill-treatment, plaintiff ied to work, whereupon the defendant a him abusive names and otherwise illed him - and upon one occasion, when itiff threatened to bring defendant before iiristrate, the latter ordered him to be put ons and had him suspended to a beam ; in consequence of such ill-usage, the Itiff sustained serious bodily injury, in" palpitation of the heart, pains in the &c For the defence, it was contended no'ill-usace had taken place; that the ral conduct of plaintiff was bad ;. that he ;ed the crew to disobey lawful commands, he had not been suspended to a beam or sed in the manner set forth by the plainand the general testimony went to prove the conduct of the captain throughout royao-e was anything but -harsh. Verdict the defendant ; costs to be paid by both ies. Thursday, Gth August. bt3X k. "William Davies was charged by stable Joyce with being drunk in the 3ts. .Fined 19s, or forty-eight hours' imonment. Civil Cases. . M. K. Clarke v. J. J. Watson. — Claim 13s fid. No appearance oi defendant, mdlater v. K. MclntosJi. — Claim LlO. In case the plaintiff sought to recover LlO he value of a kangaroo dog shot by the ndant. It appeared that in the plaintiff's frice his dog 'had taken to dissipated ways, ihe shape of prowling about after dark. Ie of these excursions the animal came is defendant's hen coops; and there deined to make a night of it. Accordingly cent vehemently at the fowls, sparing in his wrath. The proprietor, hearing I 5 of distress came to the rescue with a rm, and sent the audacious leveller to » with his fathers. The defendant al--1 ,i set ofFto plaintiff's claim of the value leslaugliteredfowls. His Worshipallowed thereof, giving verdict for plaintiff to the int of L 2 2s Gd. Monday, 10th August, ieach of thk PEAcr. —Alexander Came charged with conduct liable to provoke jach of the peace. No appearance. Bail, forfeited. ttt'KK — Henry'Brotherton, Wm. Murray, Michael Suliivan, charged with this cc, were fined respectively us, 10s, and ISTRDCTING THE PITISLTC THOROUGHFARE. jnry Downey and William llobertson, for ning " to move on," were each fined 10s 5s 6d costs. CIVIL CASES. ilson and Co. v. M'lvor.— His Worship ying a verdict for the defendant, said that :ase exhibited on both sides a very loose of doing business. After judgment, Mr land, Landing Waiter, claimed 10s for of time in attendance as a witness. His I ship refused to allow the claim, stating Mr Maitlandwas paid though lie would say well paidb^ the Geneial Governrigor v. Morton.— This case, in which the itiff claimed £30 for professional attendas a surgeon, was on remand resumed iy, for the hearing of additional evidence he defence, Mr Harvey for the plainand Mr South for the defendant, illiam Pickett, examined by Mr South, that he was a servant in the employment Ir Morton, the defendant ; he knew the itiff, and remembered an accident which >ened to Muzzlebrook in May ; he recola the first time that plaintiff came to ■ard Bush ; he saw him at the hut where the injured man; he helped him to set eg; the man's mate said to the Doctor they were working by contract for Mr ton. imes Kelly, examined by Mr South, said ' ] " t his presence the man asked the atiff for his bill ; the plaintiff asked him was to pay the bill ; Muzzlebrook said ihe would pay it, for Mr Morton had ling at all to do with his bills, because he not in his service, but simply a contracHrorkmg by the piece ; Muzzlebrook sublently said to him ( witness; that if he had wn the amount of the doctor's bill, he d have at once paid him an instalment his was the case for the defendant r South addressed the Court to the effect i the plaintiff, in his evidence, said he was aware thafc the man to whom the accident >ened was a contractor. Now the cvi- « of the last two witnesses clearly proved -the man was a contractor, and that the itiff must hare been aware of it. He r,ot wish to impute anything to tf»e tor, but still it die] seem thnt his memory somewhat defective. Besides the man distinctly and clearly asked him for his lint, which, notwithstanding, he did not prtohim. The plaintiff had failed to :any privity of contract; he ought to proved the defendant more avowedly «£ible. Furthermore, Mr Movton hrd iff part of the man offered £25, which the apant took upon himself to refuse, and this act he precluded himself from ier claim. He would in addition mentnat the defendant -was. not sued in the acter of Muzzlebrpok's master. r iiarvey said he was delighted with the snee this morningadduced for the defence corroborated that of the plaintiff. . The idant by offering the plaintiff at diffeient s;the sums of £25, £20, and £12, clearly red that he admitted his liability-i-yes he

did so,' though his learned friend might smile. As to the excessive professional charge upon ; ■which his friend at last hearing had animadverted, he did not consider it excessive. Three visits had ibeen made, each at £10, and the Seaward Bush was some 25 miles from town. He (Mr Harvey) would not go to such a distance from town forthe purpose of conducting a case for a less fee. His Worship said that this was not the time to argue the excess of fees. He was of opinion that Mr ±Morlon had placed himself in a position of liability, by saying to Mr Grio-or— «'you need not be afraid for the raonfey, I havo some money in my possession belonging to' the man ;" and then, again, the defendant Had allowed the man to go away, without making any arrangement as. to the account-in question, andwithout sending any intimation to the Doctor. He would give a verdict for the plaintiff with costs. Mr South said he would appeal in this case on a point of law —the privity of contract. Miller v. Trayner.'— Claim, L 9 12s 7d for goods delivered. Defendant pleaded not inindebted, for the reason that the sum claimed j had been included in a former account, on which he had previously been sued. This case was hesird on remand from a previous day, the Clerk of the Court in the interval having gone over the accounts and books. ' Mr M'Donald appeared for the plaintiff. John Hare, tilerk of Court, said that he had examined the accounts, &c, and that no such item was included in any former account as the amount claimed. The defendant being sworn, entered into a ravrbling statement, to the effect that the L 9 12s 7d was scattered over the account under separate headings ; and that he was mystified, and in fact, the whole thing was a mystification. He was then cross-examined by Mr M 'Donald, who said, Hand me those accounts-. Defendant: I won't, they're my own property. I have paid double already, and you want to make me pay three times. The demand of counsel having been enforced, Mr M Donald said— Show me where the item, half a tierce beef,Ls 10s. part of. the account now claimed is charged in the former account. Defendant pointed out some charges for {rin and a side of bacon. Mr Macdonald : Then gin and bacon are synonyms for half a tierce beef. Defendant : Yes. Mr Miller, examined by the defendant, who brandished a cheque violently throughout the hearing, said that lie could not understand his queries. He had received from him one payment of £12. Defendant : Now be particular ! Witness said he had received no second payment of £V 2. The defendant then addressed the Court to the effect that the whole case was a tissue and a mystification. His Worship said that ho must give a verdict for the plaintiff with costs. The defendant then said — Can I have an appeal ? Hi? Worship : No ; and it is a very good thing you cannot. Binney v. Harrison. — MrWeston, who appeared for the defendant, said that he admitted the debt, but would ask, on the part of his client, an extension of time for payment, say ten clays. Lr South, on behalf of the plaintiff, could not accede. Verdict for plaintiff, with costs. Wise v. Phillips. — No appearance. Dismissed. Spence Brothers v. Pendleton. — Mr Harvey for the defendant. John Spence said that he claimed from the master of the Evelina Kutter L 4 16s, the value of two cases of kerosene short delivered. He had received only thirty-c-iglit instead of forty cases. He produced receipts from Henderson, Borar and Co., the consignees of the Evelina Itutter. By Mr Harvey : The storeman of our firm was at- the wharf to receive delivery of the kerosene ; I cannot swear that the goods were landed at the wharf ; I know nothing at a U about them. By the plaintiff: Jlobert Taylor said he wasstoreman to Spence Bios. ; was piescnt the whole time the cases ofkerosene were landed from the Evelina Putter; he received delivery of only thirty-eight, and got them stored. Cross-examined by Mr Hprvoy : I cannot say whether there were more cases of kerosene landed than those for Spence Brothers ; the kerosene landed for Spence Brothers was branded B. &. C. ; during the day they were landed I left the jetty to go to dinner; at that time the men on the jetty all knocked off work to go to dinner ; f. knew that no cases had been landed in my ats?nce because when I went back to the jetty I found none there. s'r Harvey called Thomas K. Christian, who said that he was on the jetty from half-past seven to halfpast five, at the time the Evelina Butter was discharging ; he recollected the landing of a quantity of kerosene ; some cases were delivered upon receipt to Taylor and some to carters ; he pr cluced xhe counterparts of receipts as follow : — No. G, five cases kerosene ; No.. 9, six cases kerosene ; No. 13, four cases kerosene — of these, one was a case of mustard; No. 14, twenty cases kerosene ; No. 5, six cases kerosene. I positively swear forty cases were landed from the Evelina Rutter. His Worship said that all that the defendant had to prove was the landing, mid this had been proved. As soon as the goods were landed and notice given to consignees, the liability of the master ef a vessel ceased. He must ' find for the defendant. Diexter v. Mills.— Claim for Ll 4s. for balance of house rent. The defendant, Mrs Mills, said that her husband had deserted her ; he had been away 12 months ; she had left the plaintiff's house five months ago, but had paid him Ll4 Ss ; she barely managed to live by taking in washing and had a delicate baby only ten months old. His Worship said this was a bard ease — one which it was inhuman to bring into court. He was obliged to find for the plaintiff, but the amount claimed should beso far mitigated as to be payable in weekly instalments of one shilling, without costs. Drexter v. Storey.— Breach of contractverdict for the plaintiff.