RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 636, 8 October 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G-. G- k Fitzgerald, Esq., E.M.) FHIDAT, OCTOBER 4. CIVIL CASES. A. Boyle and Co. v. Oakes, master of the Flying Cloud.— Plaintiffs sought to recover the sum of L 56 18s 9d, tho difference between the value of a quantity of bran and oats, when shipped (under bill of Lading) onboard the Flying CJoud, and the sum they realised when sold in a damaged state on the wharf. Mr Bees for the plaintiffs, Mr Button for the dofondant. Mr Boyle deposed that 64 bags of oats, shipped with others iv the Flying Cloud, were landed in a damaged state. The captain attributed the damage to the heavy weather he had experienced at sea. Witness asked Mr Hitchmough and Mr Hungerford to make a survey of the hold [of the vessel, but the defendant refused to allow them to do so. He told his men to stop them. Tho vessel was badly damaged. Witness looked down the hold and could see some of his cargo resting against the sides of the vessel and on the bottom. There were only a few boards along the keelson. Eichard Hitchmough was called, and stated that at Mr Boyle's request he held a survey on a quantity of bran and oats. From 40 to 50 bags of bran were entirely destroyed. The bran was rotten. Between 60 and 70 bags of oats were also badly damaged by salt water. They did not appear to have been recently damaged. The oats were black and rotten. They must have been damaged for more than a week. The defendant refused to allow witness to go down into tho hold, but from the deck he could see that the vessel was insufficiently duunaged. There wasp, little dunnage round the foremast. Sbme of Mr Boyle's cargo was lying againfeftftho side. There was a little dunnage' i-along the keelson. The vessel was badly dunnaged. The damage to the bran and oats, in witness's opinion, arose from improper ft j}d, of dunnage,—.

Thomas Hungerford deposed to having at Mr Boyle's request, lield a survey on certain bran and oats, landed ex Flying Cloud. This witness corroborated tlie evidence given by Mr Hitchmough — Charles Louisson was also called, and deposod to having seen tlie bran and oats in question. They were damaged. Witness had also been on board the vessel. She was badly dmmaged. . Tbere_was a.Jittle dunnage along the keelson. Some of the' cargo was lying on the skin of the vessel —Alfred W. Gilles deposed to having sold a quantity of bran and oats at the request of Mr Boyle. They were more or less damaged, but how the damage arose witness could not say. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr Button, for the defence, contended that the goods had been damaged by perils of the sea — John Peter Oakcs, master of the Elying Cloud, deposed that the vessel was properly dunnaged for a coasting vessel. The vessel had had great difficulties td coriterid "vrith , in the shape of heavy weather, which caused her to make m'orq water than ever witness had known to do before. She was perfectly tight when he sailed. She was pumped every two hours. They had lost some of their sails, and had been obliged to put back to Nelson to repair tho vesse.t. Some of the cargo was damaged at *&i, and some ,iv the river, owing to the vessel running on to a snag. What cargo was damaged,^ sea, was in consequence of the heafy weather, and not owing to the Tiesspl being improperly dunnaged. — Crosb- „ "~ T nined by Mr Eees— Witness refused WA.CVM. „j • t ,, , „ to allort- tlie auiMrayora to inspeJv .. because tyro marine surveyors had already done so. Witness was informed that one of the surveyors appointed by the pkiritifC was a, shoemaker, and the other .a bullopld driver. There were nine inches of dun-, nage on the floor of th& vessel. ;3CI& vessel was dunnaged along iliff ttides.' There were fifteen inches of dunnage under the oats. When witness refused to allow the surveyors appointed by Mr Louissson (who had cargo on board the vessel) to inspect tlio hold, he was not atfaf'e that the .master of the" BelJa,Yistd was one of them, aiid Mf William' EislieV the other. — It. S. Agnew was called, and deposed to having held three surveys on the vessel (with Captain Turnbull). . On the 17th September the vessel got on a snag in the river, and had suffered, considerable damage. The flooring of the tessel was well dunnaged. Iflie winga of the vessel were not dunriaged. ti is\ not customary to dunnage, the.Avings -,of coastjjig vessels. Cros,s,-examineci ,%■ Mr Eecs — The tv>6 ground tiers of tho cargo were damaged by the water she had taken in. One day's soaking would not have made the bran and oats in the condition the witnesses have described them to have been in. Two of the crew were called to prove that the- Flying Cloud, for a coasting vessel, was sufficiently dunnaged. The carpenter wasi called, and deposed that the vessel hiui sustained considerable damage by running' on a biiag. ■ '■ His Worship reserved judgment in the case till the following day (Saturday). A. Boyle and Co. v. John Carr, master of the Sea Bipple. — This was an action brought to recover the sum of lit os. The plaintiffs shipped eight bales of chaff on board the Sea Ripple, at Melbourne, valued at Ll3: On the goods being landed here, the eight bales of chaff iii question were found to be damaged, were sold liy auction^ and realised the sum o'£ L 5 15s. The plaintiffs now sought 16 recover the difference L 7 5sJ Mr Button for the plaintiffs, Mr Harvey for the defendant. Mr Boyle was called, and produced a bill of lading for forty bales of pressed chaff, shipped at Melbourne in the Sea Eipple. The chaff on delivery was found to be more or less damaged by salt water, but eight bales were Very much damaged by potatoes lioing stowed in the hatchway immediately- 04 tho top, of them. ■ The witness declined to take delivery of the eight bales in question. A survey was held by Messrs Loutitt and Campbell (Campbell and Linton) and the chaff was subsequently sold auction, notice of sale r having been previously given to the master of the ves•sel. — John Campbell, a stqreman in the employ of the plaintiffs, was called, and stated that the eight bales in question appeared Lo have been damaged by potatdesj butthe^wjfeneai^as unable to say "that the dama^'li§|Bli|t been also caused hy salt water. Tne_^u^v-eyors, Messrs Lou- 1 titt and Cuthbert' Campbell, were called} and deposed to havineatafl&asttassurvey on the eight bales of chaff.- ' jjitneir opinion the damage had been caiiseft by their coming into contact with potatoes. The rest of the chaff was also slightly daniaged; but by sea water. For the defence, iL S. Agnew was called, and deposed ihat, assisted by Captain Turnbuu; he had held a survey on the cargo of .the Sea Eipple. The eight bags of chaff were damaged by sea water, and not by potatoes. Crossexamined by Mr Button. — In making a long voyage, potatoes ought not to be stowed on the top of chaff. — John Carr, master of the Sea Eipple, deposed that we had been obliged to put intoHobartTovmthroughstressofweather. Seventy bales of chaff were shipped at Melbourne. A survey was held on the cargo at Hobart Town, and 37 bales were found to have been damaged by sea water. Tho vessel was properly dunnaged .The hold was in good order when the vessel sailed from Melbourne. The vessel is quite new. This was her first trip. (With consent of plaintiff's counsel the report of the surveyor's on the survey held at Hobart Town was put in — It stated that twenty-five bales of chaff branded " AB H" wero damaged by sea water and twelve bales marked "AB & Co." were slightly damaged by sea water.) The vessel was repaired at Hobart Town. From there to Hokitika she encountered very heavy weather. She was detained in the roadstead for a month. The leakage was occasioned by straining. The state in which the chaff was when landed here was owing to tho natural decay of tho potatoes and chaff together. In (this case) his Worship also reserved judgment until the following day. Saturday, Octobeb 5. DjiUNK and Disokdeely. — Mary Ann Smith was fined LI with the alternative of forty-eight hours' imprisonment. Peter Price, an old offender, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment without the., option of a fine. civil cases. In Boyle and Co. v Carr, and Boyle and Co. v Oakes.-p His Worship (in both cases) gave a judgjtoont for the amount claimed; . The courli was adjourned till eleven o'clock on ]|[ojidav, -

i .- . Monday, October 7. Dbune: and Incapable. -— William Holmes and Margaret ConneU were each. »£nedlOs with the option of four and fsvVnty hours imprisonment. *>Dbunk and Disobdebly. — Alexander Whitehead was fined LI, or to be imprisoned for eight and forty hours in default of payment. ; .vlndecency. — William Jones, on bail; failed to-appear.^ The case was adjourned till the following day. - . , „ . Laeceny. — Edward Brine was charged with stealing beer of the value of Ll 16s. William Woolston deposed that he is employed at the Victoria- Brewery. On baturday night as witness was going to bed he Heard a tap running. He went outside but could not see toy one. He waited for a few moments when he heard footsteps on.some timber which was lying Close to the beer barrels. A . man, who afterwards turned out to be prisoner, took a tin which was" under the tap, emptied the beer out of it, threw the tin under a fence, .and ran^way. Witness stopped the prisoner and gave him in charge. He afterwards searched for the tin and found, it under, the fence — Charles Godhead deposed that he was brewer at the Victoria Brewery. The cask out of which prisoner had taken the beer was pointed out to him by the last witness. The cask was on tap £M witness could hob gay If any beer had, b,een drawn off." The casks were ; kept in a passage between the brewery and the liouse. Prisonc-i', in his defence, : stated that he had only been Kef c a few : days, and as he was coming through the : passage a man ran after him and stopped him. His Worship senteiiSed him to one : month's imprisonment and hard labor. i AssAtJLf: — Thomas O'Brien, on re- - inand from 4th diloiiefj was charged with Assaulting Constable Emerson in the oitef l eiition of -his duty, William Emerson - deposed tuat-"-on the 21st, p£, April, he - was stationed at tlie Haast River. He j arrested a person, on that day, named! 3 Lewis, for being drunk and disorderly. "* The prisoner attempted to rescue Lewis, 3 and, in bo doing, struck the constable on the chest. He afterwards challenged him !. fy> fight. A crowd gathered round, and ' prisoner a'tteinpte&^tQ... excite the crowd. Sergeant JBlane aAer^ards arrested, the ' prisoner. Constable Brennan deposed to M having seen prisoner strike at the wit- \ ness. Prisoner stated that the constables had the man down on the ground, and ( wefe ilitreating him. The byestanders remarked that it was a shame, and he as- { sisted the man to get up. His Worship Temanded him till vie following dW.- ] iNFOJtMATiON -DEMANDING- StXBETY < of the Peace.—J oin" Wright was / charged, on the information of Charles Miles, with assaulting him on the sth ( inst., by shaking his fist in complainant's • face. Wright being at the time within ] striking distance, and, further, with ' using threatening language, to the effect that he would knock It out of him. Mr Button appeared for the defendant. . The complainant deposed that on the day in Question (Saturday last) he met prisoner in the vicinity of the Court House. Defendant asked him to settle with him for some digging he had done &r witness. He asked for two pounds ; witness said it? would him two pouncls if he had lpfc done his premises any damage as he said he would.. He afterwards came into the' Lambing Mat Hotel .where the-wit-ness" was, and threatened fo "inoelc.it but of him." . Complainant swore that hg was in bodily fear. .of ,the defendant. Cross-examined by Mr Button—Defendant had dug less than half-an-acre. Complainant is under no obligation to defendant. He never saved complainant from an imposition. Defendant had used threatening language towards witness before. The prisoner made a long statement with reference to certain transactions-, he has had with the complainant. He then called Dctectiv.e Dyer, who deposed to having known defendant for the last three year,s. During that time witness knew him to.be a hard-working peaceable man. His Worship remarked that the complainant had sworn that be stood in bodily fear of the defendant, and he had no reason to believe the case was a frivolous one. Defendant was ordered to find sureties to keep the peace towards Charles Miles for six months, himself in LSO and two sureties in L 25 each. .. Wilful and Malicious Injuby to Pbdpebty.— WiUiamMoffatwas charged, on the information of Solomon Michael Solomon, with, 6n the 27th September, damaging'-a'Jcottage, the property of the complainant, to the extent of L2O. Mr Harvey for the complainant; Mr Eees fbr the defendant, — Mrs Solomon stated that on the 27th. September she saw the defendant pull down one of the gable's of the cottage. It was built of palings. Defendant said the timber belonged to him. — Solomon Michael Solomon stated that he was the owner of the cottage. He purchased it from a person named Cook, who first became possessed of it two years and a half ago. Witness estimated the damage at L 7. It would cost tliat to repair it, including the palings. — Thomas Cook deposed that he formerly was proprietor of the cottage. He built the cottage two years and a half ago. Wo portion of it belonged ..o defendant. Witness sold it to Solomon. — William Slater stated that he had taken a contract from complainant to repair the damage. He would charge complainant from L 2 to L 2 ss, including timber. Cross-examined by Mr Eecs — He had used about forty palings in repairing the cottage. He employed a man to repair the cottage. It took the man a day. I assisted him. James Donald deposed to having seen the defendant removing the palings. William Strange deposed that he heard a knocking at the end of the house, and went out. Defendant remarked " that is the way to doit." Witness replied, "you might let us get paid for it before you knock it down." Cross-examined by Mr Rees — ! It would take nearly 100 palings to repair the damage. Palings are worth 27s a hundred. It would employ a man for about half a day to repair the damage. For the defence Mr Eees called Samuel Jacobs, who deposed — that gable of the cottage in question was on defendant's ground, The cottage stands tlirce feet on defendant's ground. Frederick HickZfian was called and deposed to having ereqted a fence for defendant close to the cottage. It touched the building. It was nailed to the cottage. His worship ordered the defendant to pay to the compainant 35s and costs. The dcf?ndant had laid a counter information against the complainant for destroying a .. fence, thereby doing damage to the extent of thirty shillings. His Worship ordored Solomon to pay Moffat 5s and costs 9a, ' Bw4.CS w Powwi OflDWAjfOS.—Sftwh,

King was charged, on the information of W. C. King, with using, on the' 3rd inst, abusive and insulting- language towards himjcalculatcd to provqk^a .breach of the peace. Mr Button fb? the complainant, Mr, Rees for the defendant. On the app'lica? tion of Mr Rees"the hearing of the information was adjourned to the 11th inst to enable defendant to subpoena witnesses, AssAtTLT..— Sarah Blundell was charged with assaulting Mary Marsh on the 4th instant. The cotdplstinaitt stated that the . defendant took her child's elo'thes off the clothes line and- threw them down. Complainant went into her house» and when she came out again defendant came behind her and struck her on the head with a small washing tub. The defendant on being asked whether she wished to make any statement replied that she had nothing to say for she had not done anything. His Worship stated that he could not say whether defendant had touched the complainant wijh the tub, but had she struck ncr with it she wQuld have knocked her down. The information was dismissed.