RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 87, 23 December 1865, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTR ATE 'S COURT.

„ TnuitsDAV, itao. 21. . , [Before G. G. FitzG^bbald, Esq., E.M.] There was only one } case on tho polioo sheet, that of a lunatic, who wag re- " landed for medical treatment. <„ .. Civil Cases, Ryley V Cottpn. — A claim for L 5 156, Jor medical attendance on a 1 man "that defendant had undertaken to bo for. Tfhe defendant denied that he had ever Income responsible, he merely on : intrbaiiclng ttie patient .'said, that. he. /guarantee "Iris' honesty. Verdiot for the, amount. „ ': •;,. Beatty v Joyco.-r^Mr O'jCiOugtilin 'for ! 'the plaintiff; Mr South, for the defence. An action ,for short d§Uvery of 'goods, ox Ijtpna, and to recover freight '■^aid to tho Mouttt Alexander over, again, previous . freight for the game having' been paid to the Rona. The <. amount sought to be - recovered was ,L 32 17s. - At the'taiteet of the case Mr. South rose to address the bench, for 'the purpose of taking an objection to .thefonnoftlie 'proceedings, when Mr { O.'itQughUu remarked, that ho addressed the Court a great deal too often. ThisVemork led. to tan exceedingly warm "altercation between the "two learned 'gentlemeh, \phicii was resumed at intervals dur!pg^ejwh'6le hearing. The objection take^h Tfty MrJSouth was, that in the plaint fhe pariiduhirs were insuf-. ficient, as in fact thiß was ah action on; : a bill of lading, and there 'wds. ho bill' 'of lading before tho Court. The ex- 1 tended jurisdiction brought that- Court /within the rules of district courts, and. ,in these rules it was distinctly laid .'down that the fullest particulars should be attached to all declarations, for the Vmrpose of allowing the defendant every opportunity of being prepared. .In this case no mention was made of these bills 'of lading, and it might be that some points might arise from them^which ho had not evidence to rebut. On theso ■grounds he applied for a non-suit.--(Tho magistrate did not think these grounds woro sufficient, and the case proceeded.) The plaintiff proved that he lost tho goods, the value of which ho sought to recover, and his evidenco was corroborated •by another witness. Tho defence was, that some cases of bacon, on. which it was alleged double freight had been charged, were not identical with the cases , short d*livered c* Rono 1 , and in corroboration it was. shown that thero was a difference in measurement of 16 feet, though the mark's and numbers in the invoido were the same. I|t was further contended by Mr South that the short delivery of the othek goods came" under One of the exception! on the bill of lading, and that it wn j occasioned by the* act of Gobi.* It was proved that when the Rona arrived the bar was in too dangerous a state for her to cross it, and', the, Ruby was engaged to lighter her- : The second trip, /however, . tho Ruby went on shore ; and Mr South argued that tho goods were lost tlien, _ and that the Rona and Ruby could, in • point of fact, bo considered ono vessel for the discharge of cargo ; such being tho cis;e, the accident that occasioned the loss came under the exception abow referred to, and that the dcfondp.nl did

all ho could to land the goods in safety, and therefore that ho was not responsible for any 16350s that had taken place. Tho Bench,, after well weighing tho various argiimonts, thought that tho defendant had failed to prove that tho wreck of tlio Ruby brought tho goods undor any exception in tho bill of lading. As to tho identity of tho cases of bacon, on which doublo freight had been charged, He had no doubt, aud thoroforo tho verdict would bo for the plaintiff for tho full amount claimed. Chipping v. M'Clintock. —Mr O'Loughlin for the plaintiff, Mr South for the defence. Action to recover L3l 6s, horse hire. Tho defendant paid L 3 19s into Court, in satisfaction, and pleaded that was all that was -duo as defendant had purchased the animal, as per agreement, a few days after he first had it. , The magistrate did not consider tho defence proved, and gave a verdict for tho balance of the amount sued for. Bartlett v. Margctts.— Mr South for tho plaintiff, Mr Campbell for the defeiioe. This was an action to recover £100 damages fpr breach of contract in the sale of an interest in section 171 in .Revell 'street;. The plaintiff said that ho wished to purchase a section for the erection of a'theaire, and he was'introduced by Mr Edwards to tho defendant. Plaintiff at the timo told him that it jWasjnecessary for tho ground to bo no less"than,4s x 150 feet, as, that was the size of the theatre Defendant said that the secjtion was a full ono of 165 feet in .depth, andpoirited out a building^ at I ' the, "end which liO said he would get. moved 'off, The 'person in this building, however, refused to give it up after the purchase money (L 400) had been paid to the defendant, and he brought an action in the Warden's Court to compel removal. The Warden, | on hearing the case, decided that; the ground in question belonged to neither of the .'persons" claiming it, but at the ea'me time told plaintiff that he could sue defendant for selling what did not belong to him. ''He" had bden subsequently compelled to r buy , another section at a further edst of L 275, the allotment sold •by the defendant being of »o possible use .to him. — In cross-examination by 3)>lr. Campbell, plaintiff said^ that at the time he made tho purchase, the land was fenced in, but he removed tlio fence aftor tho Warden's decision. Tho whole section that he had purchased was fenced in at the time. The Warden decided that the entire depth of tho section was only 66 feet, and that a road there intersected the IGS ft., sold by defendant. Mr. Campbell submitted that the magistrate had no jurisdiction, as this was a title to land — whether the land was Crown land or private property.— The Magistrate said, that this was not a question of title to land at all, it was, an, action ,for damages on breach ofcoAtract.— -Mr. Campbell would thou appeal on this ground, if the verdict was adverse to his .'Client. He proceeded to arguo that if the defendant sold the property without fraud,"; and he believed he had a right to do so at the time of salo, he was held harmless for .any cousequencfts through any error beliig made. He quoted Chitty on contracts, 'in Support of this view. Further, in the agreement the defendant covenanted to sell the interest he had "in the nature of the property," and this, he had done. — The Magistrate did not think this objection substantial, for it specially stated that the property was to havo a. depth of 1,65 feet, which it clearly had not. — Mr Campbell argued that before completing the purchase the plaintiff had every opportunity of ascertaining tha defendant's right to sell. If he failed to do so after employing an attorney and a surveyor, to protect his interests, ho did so at his own risk» for they delivered the wholo to him. If the goldfields regulations did not permit them to hold 165 feet they were ignorant of the fact at the time of sale. — Tho dofendant was called, and Bald, that he sold a section 30 feet by 165 feet, tho whole of which was fenced in. When he sold, he merely sold his interest in section 171, and ho believed at the time he was entitled to tho full depth ; if he had not thought so he would not haVe put up the fence. Several of his neighbors hold 165 feet, and had not been interfered with by the authorities. At tho ""timo he sold he gave no guarantee, he merely sold the interest ho held. — By Mr. South : He sold according to his business license ; and it was vory likely ho did guarantee the depth, for at that time ho had that fenced in. — The plaintiff was recalled to prove that the defendant did guarantee tho 165 feet, in the presence of a witness. — Mr. Campbell addressed the Magistrate for tho defendant, and remarked that no damage whatever had been proved. This was absolutely necessary, for without it the Bench could not assess damages. Plaintiff had the land still in possession, and it might have increased in value. — Mr. South replied, and said his client would very gladly give back what ho had got if the L4OO were returned. — The Magistrate 1 '' considered that the plaintiff had ou)!y^U^shed his case ; mid gave a *yeMjßßE|the full amount claimed. — Mj|Hropell gave notice of appeal aflS^^Hpc decision, on the grounds s fflßHp OTe » an d undcrtooif that' his dH^HPould comply with the nccesujiny court then adjourned, it bding iijflmsix o'clock, several edscs being nijJHpnrily postponed. ) 1 « Fiu'day, Deckmbku 22. |)"guNKA.RD. — Francis M'Mahon V/as. nuedY2o.s for diunkcnncss. j • f'tJitiouH Tlidjno — Annie Clark \nn i'or tlii.; (.JV'-j.co fined 40a ' v

Polioe Summonses. „ John Reid, for having a dray on tho roadway' on the night of tho 13th mat, was fined 10s. Dofondarit 'did not ap. 'pear. , . . . .. . Nicholas Peters' was' charged with com.mitting a nuisance, by discharging two .buckets full of night soil on tho bdach, below high wator mark. Tho fact >vas not denied, but tho defendant had stated to the policoman ho was unaware ho was committing any offonco. Tho Magistrate ; Undor what Act do yoii proceed ? Sergeant M'Mynn : Under tho notico posted on tho beach your worship. Tho Magistrate : I have nothing to do with notices, I am bound by the Act. (To tho defendant) — You aro discharged. A host of summonses against a very largo proportion of tho trader's of Hokitika could not bo gono on with, as the constable who prosecuted was absont at l tlio Warden's Court. Thoy woro thoreforo adjourned till this day. CitiL' Cases, A number of civil cases which had boon loft over from tho previous day, was then called on. . . ■ . , Stevens v. Watts. — Mr. O'Loughlin for' tho plaintiff. This was rather a peculiar action to recover wages for" services rendered, and has been, before the couit before. A correspondence had taken place between the magistrate and the highor legal authorities on tho subject, and the magistrate . [remarked that tlio result of it was to induce him'to'dismiss the case. At tho earnest request of Mr. O'Ldughlin, who, said ho expected important documents in reference to the matter from Christchurch by that day's mail, a further adjournment took place. Sloan v Hughes. — This was an action brought against the defendant as master of tho Maid of the Yarra, in reference to goods in that vessel. A largo number of witnesses, including some of the leading mercantile peoplo of the town, were, in attendance, but thero was no appearance, of tho plaintiff or his solicitor. Mr Oakes who appeared for tho defence, asked for tho caso to be dismissed, with costs, and .a 'judgment accordingly, wfis given. . A short time afterwards - tho plaintiff appeared, and addressing the Bench, said that his absence had been occasioned through hunting up, witnesses, and searching for his legal rcprcscntative,Mr South. He therefore bogged" the Bench to postpone the case, but this could Hot be dono as it had already been dismissed. Cassiuo and Comiskey v Sinclair. — Mr Oakes appeared for the defendant. This action was to recover L 32 Cs, for goods supplied. Ono of the plaintiffs appeared in the same breathless condition as tho suitor in tho previous ease, having been engaged in. tho eamo mission, viz., looking for his solicitor, Mr South, who, it then appeared, was engaged in the Warden's- Court. Tho case was, however, partially proceeded With. Mr Oakes admitted that the goods had been supplied, and that the acc6\lnt was correct, but said that tho wrong 1 ' persoU —^ihe wifo instead of tho husband, had 'been summoned. ,Mr Cassius, in reply to this, said that ho had known, and had business' with, tho defendant .for years, and could almost swear that, sho wore hot a married woman ; and his solicitor had informed him that even if she was 'married, and traded in her own namo, she was liablo for debts *o contracted., Mr Oakes was prepared to prove that sho was married, and tho Bench thcreforo postponed tho hearing for tho attendance of tho plaintiff's solicitor*. ;. Another case, Lofquist v. Matthew, .was called on, in which again Mr South had beon retained, but ho did not appoar, and tho Magistrate remarking that it was impossible to proceed in ihat way, adjourned the coiirt till 2 o'clock, so that tho missing gentleman might bo released from his AVarden's offico duties. (The Court re-opened at 2' o'clock.) Cassius and Comiskoy v Sinclair. — Mr South now appeared, and this case was proceeded with. In order to meet the defence, that sho was not responsible, being a married woman, it was shown that throughout tho whole business transacted between the parties, defendant always acted on her own bphalf, and only a nionth befo'ro paid plaintiff L2O. The defendant positively swore that she was a married \yoman, her husband's namo was Daniel Sinclair, and the license of. the public^ house that she kept was in her husband's name. The magistrate considered tho defendant liable, and gavo a verdict for the amount claimed. Mr Oakes gavo notice of appeal. Wilson and Co. v Bcattv. — Mr South for tho plaintiff; Mr OLoughlin for tho defence. This was an action to recover L IOO on a bill of exchango for LlO2 10s, dishonored under tho followeircumstances. Defendant ordered certain goods of Mr Shcppard, plaintiffs' agent in Hokitika, and gavo a bill for the amount. At tho timo of giving tho order, defendant, as was admitted by the plaintiffs, gavo special instructions that tho goods should bo insured to their full value on being shipped. They were placed on board tho Midad, together with other goods ordered ol 1 the edmo firm, through the samo agent, to tho total amount of L 327, but tho insurance company refused to givo more than L2OO on ihoin. -Tlila Midas was subsequently lost, and defendant got none- of his goods, nor the full insurance "money that he had given instructions about. Of the other goods shipped, none were specially ordered to be insured ; but tho plaintiff now proposed lo divide the £200 insurance money " pro rata" amongst tho different owners, and, though expecting the defendant to pay his bill foi' 1 goods not received, declined 10 allow him any other privilege

than to come in as one of the uninsured. , Under theso circumstances, payment was resisted, nnd tho proposed arrangement refused by tho defendant. Tho facts were not disputed, but plaintiffs alleged that they could not insure the goods to tho full amount, as the ' company rofused to give moro than previously stated, and therefore that defendant was obliged to tako common risk with others. It was 'urged by Mr South, that as it was by no act of the plaintiff's that tho goods were lost, as all possible insurance had been effected, and therefore that defendant's instructions had been complied with, the contract oil which tho bill was given was as intact as if the goods had come safely to hand. Tho acceptance of the bill of lading by tho defendant, the shipment and insurance of the goods, completed tho confiidoration for which tho bill was given, and tho defendant was liablo. He contended that in cases of this kind, Magistrates should confine themselves to the strict rules of common law, and by thoso the defendant was compelled to pay tho amount claimed. Tho acceptance of tho bill of lading, under tho "Bills of Lading Act., 18 and 19 Viet, c. Ill," -rendered defendant rdsponsiblo and exonerated plaintiffs. . Ho was not absolutely certain that tho Act in question had been adopted in New Zealand, but ho'rememb'erdd to case in Southland where it was acted on. Tho magistrate said that thero clearly, was a special contract- between tlio plaintiffs agent on tho on,e hand and dofehdant on tho other, whore-by .the latter purchased goods for which the bill .of exchange was given. A bill of lading, founded on this contract, was accepted, but it was quite certain that tho goods were never received by defendant, and that the instructions ho lu>d given had not been carried out. Under these circumstances he could not oco how defendant could be called on to pay tho bill, and he should dismiss tho case. , Lofquist v. Matthew. — Mr South for plaintiff, Mr Oalccs for tho dofonco To recover L 45, money alleged to have been received by defendant bolonging to plaintiff, tho produce of the "salo. of v section. The defence was a total denial of any .'right on the part of the plaintiff to tho scctioh in question, but it was proved that defendant had acted as his agent, and a verdict for the amount was given. During the afternoon Mr South madq an application for tho reinstatement of tho case. Sloan v. Hughes, which was dismissed in' Iho morning owing to tho absenco of the plaintiff. As thero was no objection ' offered by Mr Oakos, who appeared for tho dofendantj tho application was granted, Mr S-aith undertaking to givo. notice to the witnesses on tho othor side. Tho Court adjourned at five o'clock.