RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 17, 16 December 1863, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

• Monday, 14i 1 h December; (Before M. Price, Esq., li.M.) Drunkenness. — Four persons were fined for being drunk. Obstructing the Footpath. — William Napier was fined 5s for obstructing the footpath in Dee-street, by placing a quantity of firewood thereon. A Theatrical Fracas. — Tl. G. Hoskins was summoned by J. Loekyer for committing ah assault on him. Mr Weston appeared for the defendant. The evidence of the plaintiff was to the effect that, having obtained a judgment of the Court against Mr Holland (the manager of thePrincess'Theatre)for£5 — aweek's wages — he went to the Theatre to get the money, land on presenting Mr Holland with the order, he took it to the defendant, who rushed out of the bar with it in his hand, and thrusting it in plaintiff's face, struck him in the mouth more than once with his fist. For the defendant, Mr Holland was called, and denied that Mr Hoskins did more than shove the summons in plaintiff 's face, and call him a "dishonest and unmanly fellow" for taking out a summons when he had £12 of the theatre money in his hands He admitted that Hoskins was very excite 1 at the time, and might iiave used strongeilanguage than merely calling plaintiff a " dishonest person." The Magistrate said he was of opinion that the defendant in his excited state had committed an assault on plaintiff, and inflicted the penalty of £2. Skalili Debts Cases. Stanford and company v evans. Claim for .£l6 19s for goods sold and delivered. Plaintiff was nonsuited ; the delivery of the goods not being proved. J'RASEIt AND ANOTHER V FISHER. Claim for £14 on a dishonored acceptance. Verdict by default. "WATSON V HOSKINS. Claim for £7 12. Verdict by default. PmOTTO V JA3IIESON AND CAMERON. Mr Harvey appeared for the plaintiff ; M> South for defendants. An notion brought to recover damages for detention of the lighter Jiedcliff, of which the plaintiff was master. Plaintiff failing to give -any lli ing like satisfactory evidence of his claim — more apparently from his inability to speak the English language, being a foreigner —the Bench gave a nonsuit. M'K,*Y V HOUNER. An ftpplicjalion'ior art appeal in this case was made, and granted by the Bench. SMITH AND FAIRWEiTHES V WILSON. Mr 31 ' Donald appeared for ; the plaintiffs; Mr Smith for" the defendant. This was an action to recover £50, the value of a case of boots shipped per the Willi-drr Miskin, (of which vessel' the defendant is roaster,) at Dunedin in July last, -and consigned to plaintiffs in Invercargill, but which had never been received. Evidence was given ;by the pram tiles' of the non-r'eccipt of 'the goods. A. dimming, forwarding agent, gave evidence to ■ the effect that he was appointed by tlfe'plain tiffs to receive the goods." With regard to the case in question, -lie had put bisInitial "C against' it in the 'freight book ; but lid explained that sucli''initial'&hlycigriified that' he was cognizant of the -*act"of its r arrival by the steamer, and did not signify any acceptance of ils delivery. He could not take delivery until the goods Avere landed on tlie ! platform by the jetty authorities. He never received delivery of the case in question. He could Vrot take delivery at the other end of 'the' jetty. The Government took charge of the goods landed irom the ships at the lower end of the 'jetty, -and conveyed them to the; platform, where consignees or their agents! received delivery. For the'defence it was shown that the cus- • tomary notice to consignees had been duly given by the agents of the vessel, Messrs' Dalgety, Rattray : and Co. W. Hepburn, the mate'bf the William Miskin, was called, ani gave evidence of the landing of the case'froin the steamer on the end of the Jetty. The case, like other portions of the cargo, was landed oh 'the Jetty in 'the customary manner. There was no one taking delivery of the goods. lie considered that oil the landing of the goods on the Jetty, all responsibility of the vessel was at an end ; the Government took charge., of the'goods there -from the vessel. ; The Magistrate, in giving his decision in the case, which, he said, involved a question of great interest to the public, was of opinion that in law it was held that the agents for steamboats must be regarded in the same' light as common Carriers, and, as such, were ; responsible for all goods entrusted in their ' charge. In the case before the Court it had been proved that the goods were on board. Then as "to the relief of the responsibility by the delivery of the goods to the consignees, the mate of the William Miskin proved that the goods were landed on the wharf, and it had also been proved that the notice to consignees had been given. He quoted " Koscoe " to shotv that in such cases it -vvas deemed sufficient delivery of the goods when the™ custom and usage " was followed by the adoption of the usual course in giving notice to the consignee, and, in landing the goods giving the consignee a. reasonable time and opportunity to receive them. A s to the evidence of custom, the mere delivery of the goods on the wharf, and there leaving them, without any notification of their arrival being given to the -consignee, was not sufficient ; but in the case before the Court it did not appear that the responsibility, by any contract, was to continue until the actual delivery into the hands of the persons appointed to receive them ; but, on the contrary, it had been proved that the plaintiffs had an agent at the Jetty who was to receive all their goods by "all vessels, and who stood, in that case, in the same position as the plaintiffs themselves. Then it had been proved that that portion of the delivery referred to in " Itoscoe,'' had taken place, by the " knowledge of the landing of the goods having come to the plaintiffs, or at least to their agent. Mr Cumming had, it appeared, come to the knowledge of the landing of the goods, by the fact of his initial been given in the book — that, in his opinion, clearly proved that he was aware of the knowledge that the vessel was discharging, which was something equivelant to their receiving notice of the goods having arrived. Therefore, the landing of the goods, coupled with that notice, was, according to Itoscoe, sufficient delivery of the goods. The box, therefore, having been landed, the responsi* bility rested with the plaintiffs ; the verdict, consequently, would be for the defendant, with costs.