RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT
(Before H. Eenrick, Esq., E.M.) CIVIL SIDE. ' Judgment fob Plaintiff. Turner v, Eead ; claim, ss, goods.— Judgment for amount and costs, 7s. Judgment Summons. T. Spencor v. Aperahama Pokai.—Adjourned for a fortnight. Defended Case.' Williams v. Stone.—Claim, £9, for damages alleged to have been sustained by the loss of a boat, and damage done to a wharf in the Xauaeranga River by the logs floating down the stream to the defendant's mill at Shortland.—Mr Miller appeared for the defendant.—The evidence of the plaintiff went to shew that on the 25th July last there was a fresh in the river, and his boat and one attached to it, with, five others, were broken away and damaged by about twenty mill logs floating down the stream. Believed the boat is on the rocks between here and Tapu; had not seen it there, but was told of it. The value of the boat was £7. The damage done to the small wharf on the land of the plaintiff was estimated at £2.— During cross-examination by Mr Miller the plaintiff described how the logs coming down had done the damage. He did not fasten his boat) to the watermen's steps because the current was too strong, and he therefore put in' at the other end of the wharf. The boat was valued by the fishermen at £7 10s. The wharf was put up just four years ago, and has been carried away and repaired several times siDce. f James Burd, aged 14, deposed that he went across the river with. Mr Williams on the morning of the fresh, and saw him tie the boat to Bettis' boat, which was the outside one of five. Saw the log strike Bettis' boat, and carry it and' Williams' boat away. To Mr Miller—Mr Williams did not try to go to the waterman's steps. Did not see the log strike any other boats after Bettis' was carried away. This closed the, case for the plaintiff, and Mr Miller then addressed the Court in defence, contending; that unless some negligence on Mr Stone's part was proved, he was not responsible for damages caused by logs carried away by an extraordinary fresh. Again, no damage had been caused by the log to plaintiff's boat, the damage being caused by plaintiff tying his boat to another boat, instead of putting it in the place provided. It seemed plain to him i that plaintiff had been guilty of contribu* tary negligence, and therefore the defendant was not liable for any damage caused. ! His Worship did Dot consider that there had been any negligence on the part of plaintiff, and thought that the boat had been tied in the safest place. Mr Miller produced Government notices of Mr Stone's license to float timber down the Kauaeranga river. His Worship here questioned whether the license also gave power to construct a dam to stop the logs, as the right to float down timber was alone mentioned. Mr Miller said he would call evidence in support of this, and called Captain J. Stone,' who deposed that he had a native title to a portion of the land on which the booms were erected, and a conveyance for another portion. Previously to obtaing this he paid the natives for the right to the ground. His right to erect the boom 3 had not been disputed. John McPiko, in the employ of defendant, deposed that he Jived at the booms, and it was duty to keep them in order. He recollectad the fresh in question; it was the highest he had seen in the river. The piles at the eastern side were driven in, 14 feet. After the fresh in the early part of July examined the booms, and found them all right as far he could see. At- the freah in question some of tb.e eastern piles were smashed out,, allowing several logs to get pact the booms. Heard these pjlee give way early in the morning, bal could not see anything. To the best of his belief none of the logs were in the booms before the fresh went out \e\\ that escaped came down with the fresh. His Worship said there werotwo questions to, settie: first, were the boomssufll i ciently strong to stand the freshes which might be expected, granting that defendant had the right to oifect booms?.and second!, supposing defendant had not that right,
was he not guilty of negligence in allowing such large quantities of timber to collect? The questions were important ones, and he would therefore reserve his decision till next Court day, the 28th inst. Wilson and Brennan v. Stone.—This was a Bimiiar case ito the last, the claim being for £27 10s, so the R.M. decided to adjourn tlu> case to next Court day, as the plaintiff's right to sue would depend upon the decision give in Williams' case. The Court then adjourned.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THS18830914.2.14
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4585, 14 September 1883, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
818RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4585, 14 September 1883, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.