RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Volume I, Issue 72, 24 August 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, TEMUKA.

Wednesday, August 21. (Before A. Le G. Campbell. Esq., R.M.) POLICE CASES. Five informations were laid by the police against different persons for allowing stock to wander on the railway. A nominal fine of os was imposed in eacli case. His Worship remarked that a stop must be put to this dangerous practice—dangerous both to the wanderers them-selves and to the travellers by railway. civil cases. \ Immigration Department v. - Claim £l9. Mr Hamersley, for defendant, put in an order of discharge under the Bankruptcy Act as a plea of non indebtedness. The. case was adjourned. Monahan v. Hornbrook—Claim LI6. • Mr Jamieson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hamersley for defendant. This was an action to recover damages for Josses sustained by plaintiff through the presumed negligence of defendant. The facts of the case as brought out in evidence wore these : The plaintiff Monahan was driving a combine drawn by three horses over the Opihi bridge when the defendant, on

horseback, met him. Defendant believing it unsafe to pass on the proper side because of a young horse in the lead on that side, thought it safer to pass on the wrong side. The wing of the combine on that side was down, and his horse, striking his head against it, turned suddenly round, pushing the driver against the shafts of the machine and causing him’to fall so that the wheels of the machine passed over his hand. The youth’s horse having turned round, bolted, and the horses in the machine, freed from the control of the driver, bolted too, but were stopped before any further damage was done. The claim made by plaintiff was for loss of wages, he being unable to work fur several weeks through the injury to his hand, and for medical and other expenses incurred through, the accident.* Mr Hamersley, in his address to the Court, pointed out that though there is a “ride of the road,” there is no absolute law of the road, and in cases of difficulty it is the duty of anyone to use his best judgment as to which side to pass another, and doing so will not be liable for the results of any accident occurring. The plaintiff saw a difficulty in this case, and had acted according to his best judgment. A man who drives large and heavy machines having the greater power to cause accidents should be more careful than others. It was purely an accident, and not brought about by any negligence on the part of defendant, therefore he was not liable. Mr Jamieson said that though there may be no absolute law of the road, still the rule is so generally acted upon that whosoever takes the wrong side ought to us; much greater caution than usual. The evidence had not proved that the wrongside was in this case the best side for defendant to take. His Worship found for defendant, as there had been contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. He saw plaintiff coming when fifty yards away and ought to have stopped his horses. Macrae v. Stanger—Claim L 3, for service of hor-se. Mr Johnston appeared for plaintiff. Defendant admitted the service, but asserted that ho agreed for a guarantee for L 4, and the mare proved not in foal. His Worship said guarantees should be in writing, and found for plaintiff in amount claimed and costs. Nicholas v. Buchanan—Claim LIS 17s 3d for stabling, &c. Mr Johnston appeared for plaintiff and Mr Tosswill for defendant. Mr Tosswill submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction in the case, the affidavit upon which the summons was issued being absurdly bad. Mr Johnston argued that the correctness of an affidavit of this kind was of no concern to the Court, but only to the clerk who issued the summons. His Worship taking note of Mr Tosswill’s objection decided to hear the case. George Bolton stated that he had been employed by Mr Buchanan to act as deputy clerk and bailiff to the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Temuka, and had oeon supplied by him with a horse to enable him to discharge the duties of the office. Mr Buchanan had been accustomed to turn the horse out, and for awhile Mr Bolton did likewise, but the home getting into mischief he placed him with the plaintiff at livery, writing to defendant that he had done so. Defendant refused to pay for tiie livery of the horse, as he had never given any authority for his being so stabled.

The amount of the item under this head, LG ss, and of two other items for buggy repairs, L 3 Is, were disputed, and in deciding the case the Bench struck oft’ these items and gave judgment for plain tiff f r L 5 IGs 3d, with the understanding that a cross action for damages for illegal detention of the horse should be withdrawn.

Considerable amusement was created in the Court by the defendant’s counsel advancing the plea of infancy in urging his non-liability, an amusement made the greater by a slip of the tongue, Mr Buchanan saying first that he was born in IS6G. The idea was not allowed as the claim was for business necessaries. Drew v. Wallace —Claim L 56 5s for hire or rent of two horses, a dray, and shaft harness from the 10th June, 1870, to Ist May, 1873, at 7s 6d per week. Mr Johnston appeared for plaintiff and Mr Jamieson for defendant Mr Mendelson gave evidence to the effect that he prepared an agreement between the two men under which Wallace agreed to pay 7s Gd a we'dc for the use of the chattels abovementioned, but believed the document is no longer in existence. Drew signed the agreement, but he did not remember whether Wallace did so or not. At this stage the case, and the Court, were adjourned till Wednesday, September 4th,