RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 411, 25 November 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M. ) Fbiday, 20th November, 1874.

Police v. George Neediiam. — The defendant was accused of neglecting to keep his chimney clean, whereby it took fire. The defendant pleaded Guilty, but said that the premises were so new that he did not think that cleaning would be required so soon. His Worship said that the late fire should have made the defendant more careful. Pined 10s, and costs of court, 5s 6d- Mflfl Inspecter Thompson conducted the case fc^P the police Police v. William Draper. — Charge by Sergoanfc Farrell, Inspector of Slaughtering licenses, for slaughtering twolambsonthe premises at the back of his shop in Ross Place, the same not being licensed for slaughteringpurposes. Plea, Not G-uilty. Sergeant Farrell found a young man named Wilson, in the employ of the accused, dressing two lambs, which lie said he had killed. The place was not licensed for slaughtering purposes. This young man being called said he did not slaughter tho lambs on the premises, but in the yards on the Waitahuna road ; he had merely brought them there to dress them. His Worsaid thought the police had sufficient grounds to take action but the evidence did not Bupport the charge. Case dismissed. Mr. Inspector Thompson conlucted th© case for the police. John Fitzgerald was accused of cruelty ta animals. Mr. Copeland, who appeared for accused, asked and obtained an adjournment to Monday, when tho witnesses were directed to attend. An application hy Thomas Reynolds totransfer his license for the Commercial Hotel, Waipori, to Sing Lee No objection on the part of the police. Granted. Mr. M'Coy for applicant. An application was made by William Walker, of Waitahuna, to keep his house open on the night of the entertainment for the benefit of the hospital. Mr. Thompson said the police had no objection provided the permission did not extend over 3 o'clock in the morning. Permission granted accordingly, Ilill t. The Corporation of the Town, of Lavjrence.— After the counsel on both sides had addressed tho court, his Worship gave judgment as follows : — The plaintiff has failed to show any ground for an action jn the firafa item of the account. From tho opening; statement of his solicitor I presume it was expected to prove that Mr. Holmes, as agent for defendants, gave plaintiff certain instructions, or made certain misrepresentations, which led him astray and caused him to build one pier of the bridge and make excavations in wrong places. It has beea proved that Mr. Holmes is the Town Clerk, but that in itself is no proof of agency in this particular matter. To have shown agency, it would havebeen necessary to have proved that Mr. Holmes acted within the usual scope of his duties, or that he was specially instructed in the matter. Instead of such, evidence, it has been proved by plaintiff's witness, Mr. Holmes, that he had received no instructions, and had no power to act for the Corporation, and that in fact his services were retained by Mr. Hill, and for which he has more thaTSv once been promised payment by him. Even v if this important point respecting agency could be passed over, there is the written contract, specifications and plan, to bind the plaintiff. No doubt these last are deficient in one respect, that they giro no starting point to show the exact position for the bridge, but that once determined even an ordinary unskilled eye could ascertain by th© plan the direction the bridge was intended to take. Mr. Holmes laid out only one pier which appears to be sufficiently correct, as it has bean passed. Taking this aa a starting point according to the evidence the excavations and second pier were made in quite & different direction to that given in the plan, and this line of bridge, according to the plaintiff's witness, Mr. Smith, would hay& given three feet for carriage way and five feefc for water way less than the plan, an altertion so- great as would have created a newcontract and nave required, in my opinion, tohave been agreed to under the seal of the Corporation. Upon the facts respecting th& alleged instructions or misrepresentation there is a conflict of evidence. The plaintiff says that Mr. Holmes gave him tho whole line for the direction of tho bridge. Mr Holmes says he jrave a line for and marked out the first pier work, and for the position of the other piers and genei'al direction the plan waa th© guide. Bofch these witnesses were foi« tha plaintiff and i£ it came to a question oi which I waa to give most credence to, I should rely the least upon that evidence which was given hy the result of the case. I think, however, that the difference arises simply from misunderstanding. Mr. Holmes himself assisted to prepare the plans, and it is therefore incredible that he could have been ignorant of the direction the bridge was to take, and there is nothing to raise suspicion that wrong directions were wilfully given by him, On the other hand it is in evidence that the plaintiff _has had no previous experience in bridge building and it is quite evident that he .did not understand the plan, and I have no doubt that tho cause of the mistake. Upon the other items iv the Bill of Particular:)",' it has been proved that the defendant asked the plaintiff's permission to interfere with a protection work used by him in building the bridge, and his permisiion was giren, conditionally that his work be left in tha same fltate as it then was, when he required the dam to be re-erected. The evidence shows that with regard to the wing wall that it was left in a damaged state, which caused it subsequently to be carried away. With regard to the dam the evidence of the plaintiff is ' conflicting, but the evidence of one witness [who is uninterested says he saw the construc- | tion of tho original dam, and the one erected j by defendant, aad that the last was the best of two. I think upon all the evidence on this point that the cause of the dam giving way was not from its faulty construction but by inevitable accident, the result of a flood in | the creek. Judgment will be given for the damage done to the mng wall, £5 ; coats ot '

Court, 35s ; witness, 10s ; professiousl costs, 21s. Herbert and Co. v. JB. King (as and being manager of the Beaumont aud Tuapoka Water Race Company, Registered). — Claim of £26 9s 3d for goods sold and delivered. Judgment by default for theamouut claimed, and costs of court 255. Gardner v. Capstkk. — A-ijournei one month. Monday, 23rd November. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Police v. Fitzgerald. — Charge of cruelly illtreating a horse. Mr. Copland for the accused ; Mr. Thompson conducted the case for the police. Mr. Copland objected to the information on the ground that the particular horse was not specified. An amendment being made, the accused pleaded Not Guilty. - Constable Pennefather met Fitzgerald coming from Tuapeka Mouth with the horse iv harness. Its breast and shoulders were denuded of skin ; tho wound appeared recent. The collar rubbed on the sore place. John Drysdale had seen the horse before ; it had then sore shoulders. It did not work easily, and appeared in pain. John Mackenzie, carpenter, also saw the ■ore. R. Hills, called for the defence, deposed to the accused getting a new collar for the Horse in question made so a», to ease the sore places. A horse with a tender skin might easily get sore shoulders on the Tuapeka road. J. Thompson, carrier, saw Fitzgerald •working the horse on the 10th. He did not think there was auy cruelty. It was very bard to keep a horse's shoulder sound on such a road. Mr. Copland addressed the Bench atlength for the defence. He laid stress on the fact that the accused might be prejudiced through having been recently convicted of a similar offence. ' -■•'^i.'"''^ His Worship said that exchuiing from his mind everything that was not in evidence, he thought there was some doubt as to ■whether the sore was a recent one, or caused by the journey being made when the Constable stopped the accused. In the latter case there might not be cruelty. The prisoner would have the benefit of the doubt. Case dismissed.