RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

West Coast Times, Issue 299, 7 September 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.)

Thursday, Skitembke 6.

Drunk and IncXpable. — Michael Shannon and Richard Wafer were each fined ss, or in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment, with hard labor. , Drunkenness akd Disorderly Conduct. — John Donovan, Frederick Bouner, and James Gregory were charged with this offence. The two former were each fined 5s and 15s respectively, or in default forty-eighft hours' imprisonment, with hard labor. The latter, being an old pffenrler, was fined 5s for drunkenness and L 4 for disorderly conduct, or in default of payment to be imprisoned for seven days, with hard labor.

Larcent of L 8 10s. — Margaret Anderson, who was committed for trial on.the 291h August last, on a similar charge,, when she was admitted to bail, was again charged with the same offence to-day. The prosecutor, failing to appear, on the application of the police, his Worship ordered a summons to issue for the 14th instant, to which date the prisoner was remanded. Mr Button, who defended the prisoner, made application that she might be admitted to bail on her own recognizance of LIOO. The application was granted. Larceny. — Thomas Rawlings was charged by Michael Moran with stealing 3s. It appeared that yesterday afternoon, a Mrs Stout went into the prosecutor's shop and purchased 21bs of steak, and tendered him 3s in payment. Rawlings placed the money on a shelf in an inner apartment, where the* prosecutor was lying, and left tho room. Prosecutor, in rising, noticed that Rawlings had placed a .saucer over the money, as if to^hide it, and having had cause to suspect Rawlings' honesty on a prior occasion} marked one of the shillings, left the room, and went down to his slaughter yard. On his return he missed the mone\ , and gave information to the police. Constable Cooper arrested the prisoner, searched him, and found the money Moran had missed and the shilling marked by him. Constable Cooper proved the arrest of the prisoner, and stated that when he arrested him he denied that he had »ny money about him but what belonged to himself, and at the same time produced seven shillings, and amongst them Moran picked out the one he had marked. Ou searching him at the watchhouse, the constable found L 7 on him in gold and 6s in silver. The shilling was produced in Court, and identified by the prosecutor as the one he marked, and by the constable as the one produced by pri • soner. The Magistrate sentenced Rawlings to one month's imprisonment, with hard labor.

CIVIL CASES. Hardcastle v. Hamilton. — Illegal detention of scrip in the Hokitika Tramway Company. — In this case, the plaintiff, as Sequestrator of the Supreme Court, in the estate of Richard Reeves, a bankrupt, sued the defendant as manager of the Hokitika and Kanieri Tramway Company, Limited, and deposed, that he had learned that the bankrupt was the owner of an eighth share in the company, and that at the time when he learned this there was a call of LI 2 10s due on the share, which had to be paid forthwith to prevent forfeiture. He had gone to the acting chairman of the company, to the treasurer, and to the several other persons connected with tho company, and had demanded the scrip before paying the call, but ultimately found that it was in the hands of the manager, who was then at the Kanieri ; and no objection to the surrendering of. the scrip to him having been made, he paid the call. A day or two afterwards he saw the defendant, who acknowledged himself to be the manager of the company, and to have the custody of the scrip, but declined to give it up without an order from Mr Reeves. The plaintiff asked the defendant to leave it with Mr Bouar, the acting chairman, for delivery to him, and the defendant consented. Subsequently, Mr Bonar told plaintiff that he did not think the scrip would be surrendered, and the plaintiff then .made formal demand of the defendant, who refused to surrender it to him.' The plaintiff had beeu informed that Ll6O o,dd had been paid on the share. — For the defence, it was contended that the scrip in question had been sold by the bankrupt in Melbourne, to Mr C. Hoyt,. for, L6O, and the sale was proved by Mr Keeves to have taken place a day or two prior to the 13th August — the 10th being the earliest date assigned to it. The vesting order under which the plaintiff claimed was dated the 13th, but in accordance with the provisions of the Debtors and Creditors Act Amendment Act, 1865, it related back to the filing of the affidavits on the 9th August. — The Magistrate reserved judgment.

Ross and Chaplin (by their agents, Carey & Gilles) v. Ehrenfried Brothers. — Mr Button appeared for the plaintiffs, and Messrs South and Rees for the defendants. The plaintiffs sued to recover the sum of LB7, damages sustained by the plaintiffs in consequence of the breach of agreement to employ the steamer Lioness to tow the brig Cosmopolite from the roadstead to the Hokitika river. Mr Carey (of the firm of Carey and Gilles) deposed that on Thursday, the 23rd of August, their firm, acting as agents for the steamer Lioness, agreed with the defendants, oweers of the brig Cosmopolite, to tow her over the bar from the roadstead and out again for LIOO, und/r the following conditions, viz., that if the brig was lost coming in, no charge would be made, but on the other hand, if lost going out, they were only to recover for the towage inwards. A note of the terms was made at the time in their diary, and agreed to by the defendants. The brig was. at the time riding at anchor in the roadstead. No steps were taken towards bringing her in that day, as the tide had ebbed, but on the succeeding day the Lioness got up steam and crossed the bar. Tho witness was on board, but as there was, at the most, only nine feet of water on the bar, and being cognizant of the fact that the Cosmopolite was drawing over nine feet, the idea of towing her in ou that day was abandoned. Jr could only have baen attempted »t *

great risk, and the owners had stated that the brig was not insured, and further, that they would rather let her stay in the roadstead for a fortnight than run the chance of losing her. On the 25th, the defendants and witness crossed the bar again, the person in charge of the Lioness, Nolan, being of opinion thut the tug drew too much water to attempt it that day. They spoke the vessel in the roadstead, and witness offered to ' make the attempt, but the owners again requested him not to -run any risk. The tug then bore down on one of the Panama steamers lying off the port, and lay under her stern for some time. The Lizzie Coleson shortly afterwards hove in sight, and as she was not drawing within two feet of the Cosmopolite, they made fast to her and brought her in. On the 26th, the tug landed the South Australian's passengers. The Lioness was then' in charge of Captain Turnbull. On going out they shipped some heavy seas, and the tug suffered considerable damage, carrying away a portion of the paddle-box, and unshipping her rudder. They lay alongside the brig for some time in the hope that the surf would go down. Thinking that the break had decreased, they took the brig in tow, but on reaching the outer break the signal " Ebb tide" was hoisted, and not considering it judicious to attempt the bar, the Lioness slued round and dropped the brig iv the roadstead. The condition of the bar ou the 27th was uob such as to admit of a vessel of the Cosmopolite's draught attempting to cross it. On the following day, the Lioness took passengers off to the South Australian. The brig was where .they had left her on the day previous, but was fast to the Challenge. This would bo within about an hour and a-half of high water. Mr Carey informed, the captain of the brig that the Lioness had a contract to tow her in. Captain Girdwood replied that the captain of the Challenge had an order to tow them in, but he had not seen the order. Witness cautioned him against breaking the contract, and told him that he would hold him responsible for the towage. Mr Caiey here stated that it would have been quite possible for the Lioness to put her passengers on board the South Australian, and have then taken the brig in on the top of high water. Cross-examined by Mr Kees — Neither of the Messrs" Ehrenfried remonstrated with the witness about not towing the brig on the '24th. It was high water on the 25th, to the best of witness' recollection, about twenty minutes past^n.ine, but he could not t>ay the exact time — it was considerably before high water. Witness was told on that day by one of the brothers Ehrenfried not to bring the vessel iv. Mr Carey remembered having had a conversation on more than one occasion in the course of Monday, the 27th ult., with one of the defendants relative to lightering the brig in order to lessen her draught, but witness could not fix the time of any one of these conversations. The witness also recollected conversing with Captain Martin, of the Emma Eliza, on the same subject. The witness advised one of the defendants to wait until the following day before he made any arrangements about lightering the brig, and then if the state of the channel did not improve he certainly would advise ■ him to lighter her. > He also made the same remark to Mr Bernard Marks. Witness was subsequently informed by oneof the defendants that they had made arrangements that the Emma Eliza should go out in tow of the Challenge, for the purpose of lightering the brig. On the evening of Monday another conversation took place between them, when Mr Carey again told them not to make any definite arrangements with the Emma Eliza until the following morning. v Captain Martin informed the witness that it was part of his agreement to be towed out by the Challenge. This witness objected to, as he wa ; agent for that vessel, and held a bill of sale over her. He also strongly objected to her being towed out by an opposition tug. Mr Carey recollected- saying to Captain Martin something to this effect — " It is a shame, after my getting you the lightering of the vessel to employ another tug.' 1 Mr Ehrenfried was informed by witness, about ten o'clock on Tuesday, the 28th ult., that the Lioness was going out for the purpose of bringing the brig -in. ,Mr Gille's, aworn, deposed that he was a member of the firm of Carey and Gilles, aud had read the note made in their diary with reference to the terms upon which they undertook the towage of. the brig to the defendants. ' The witness also corroborated, as far as he was present, that portion of his partner's evidence with .reference to the defendant's instructions not to run any risk in towing the vessel in. Mr Gilles, from the shore, witnessed the Challenge take the brig in tW, and steam up towards the bar. • It was exactly half -past ten. when the tug "swung round with her." When they approached the entrance, the red flag was hauled down, denoting " bar dangerous." The tug then blued round, and steamed out again. That would be about a quarter to eleven. She again faced the bar at eleven o'clock, with the brig in tow, crossed it, and brought her safely to the wharf. The witnesses told by one of the defendants, about ten o'clock, whilst they were standing on the^. beach at the back of the Empire Hotel,' that the Challenge had no order to tow - the brig in. The Lioness, at this 'time, was in the roadstead. Cross-examined by Mr South — The Cosmopolite was laden with oats, and the Keera (owned by Messrs Carey and Gilles) also had oats on board ; but at this time 'the Keera had not left Dunedin, nor was the witness aware of the fact that a portion of her cargo consisted of oats. . Mr Gilles, on the afternoon of Monday, had heard one of the defendants state that if the brig was not brought in on the day following, they would lighter her, and spoke about engaging lighters that night,, to, be towed in by the Lioneis. James Nolan, sworn, stated that he was chief mate of the Lioness, and had had eleveu months experience of the Hokitika bar. This witness corroborated the evidence given by Messrs Carey and Gilles, and sta.ted that on the 27th Captain Turnbull, the harbor-master, who had gone out in the tug, would not sanction the towing in of the brig, as the sea was too high. The witness was present at the conversation that passed between Captain Girdwood, of the Cosmopolite,- and Mr Carey, in the roadstead, relative to the Challenge taking the brig in tow, and recapitulated, almost word for word, Mr Carey's evidence on that point. Cross examined by Mr South — On the 24th they towed the Hector in, drawing eight feet six inches, the Cosmopolite's draught being nine feet three or four inches. On the 25th, the red flag, signifying high water, was flying, but the witwn did not eariiidwn was safe to bring

the brig in, owing to the heavy sea. As they went out on that day, the soundings in the channel were eigrht feet : towed the Lizzie Coleson in, as she was only drawing seven feet. The Challenge and Lioness both went out on the 28th— the former crossed the bar first, because latter had to take passengers on board for the South Australian. That would not affect the Cosmopolite in any way, or delay her, for it was not near high water, and had the Lioness gone out at the same time as the Challenge she would have had to wait an hour or so before she could have brought the Cosmopolite over the bar. The Court -then adjourned until eleven o'clock to-morrow (this day).