RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 680, 28 November 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Be>e G. G. F .Ueraifi, E-q., R.M.) Wednesday, No vembes 27. B -!eacii of Destitute Pebsons Belief Ordinance. — David Drysdale Ctirjrie (on bnl ) appeared oa remand from the 19th ''nst., charged with neglecting to provide for the suppoi'h of his wife and child. He stated that he had not recovered from (he effects of his late £\ccideufc, and was still unable to work. His Worship remanded him till the o'tn December, and admitted him to hail on his own recognizance for LlO. CIVIL CASES. Hall and Finlay v. Spence Brothers. — Mr Button for the plaintiffs, Mr Harvey "Tor the defendants. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the defendants the sum of LlO 9s 6d, being L 6 12s damage on thirty-three sacks of flour, ex Northern L^ght, at 40s per ton. LI 5s 6d for storage, receiving arid delivering, 10s. for cartage, and Jj2 2;s survey fees. WilHam Finlay deposed that he was a member of the firm of Hall and Finlay. Witness produced a bill of lading for 100 bags 'of flour, shipped in the Northern Light (the property of the defendant). The bill of lading was handed over to Mr Whittaker to receive delivery of the flour. Witness saw the flour after it had been landed, about twelve o'clock on the 18th instant ; it was a very wet day. Thirty- three bags had not been received. Witness had seen them in Clarke Brothers' store; they were wet, and the bags were hardened outside. Certain expenses have been incurred by storing the flour. Witness had tried to arrange the matter with Mr James Spence ; he replied that he could not keep the vessel there for a paltry few tons of flour; he would land it in any weather. Cross-examined by Mr Harvey — Witness did not send up a turpauline to cover the flour whilst it was being landed. The bill of lading states that the flour is to be landed on tha wharf, and at the consignee's risk. Witness did not give Mr Spence notice of the fact that a survey was about to be held on the flour. He did not see the flour taken out of the ship, consequently he could not say whether it was damaged before it was landed. Mr Whittaker. would have removed the flour before, but they would not let it go unless signed for in good order. If the flour, immediately it was landed, had been placed on a dray it would have got wet. Witness did not remove the bags of flour in question. Mr Spence stored it. The charges for receiving and delivering the flour have not been paid as yet, but they •will have to be paid before it will be delivered to him. Mr Spence stored it on the plaintiff's account. They did, not want it stored in Mr Clarke's store.

William Good deposed that he was clerk to Mr Whittaker. He saw the flour in question discharged. It was a week day. It was raining heavily. He told them it was not a fit day to discharge flour. Witness did not send a cart for it, for he did not consider it could be carted away without being damaged. He offered to cart it away if they wouM take a receipt for it not in good order. They refused to let it go unless a clean receipt was given. That was at about eleven o'clock. Crosg.examined by Mr Harvey. While sdfSvi flour, the property of Ecclesfield Brothers, was being received from one ship to another it got so damaged that they would not sign for it in good order. Witness - received no notice of the landing of the flour. He was carting goods for Cowlishaw and Plaisted that day. He saw the flour landing. He did not notice any of the bags stained. He carted away thirteen bags of flour between three and fcur o'clock. He saw them landing the flour about nine o'clock that day. He also saw some sugar discharged that day. Robert Quance stated that he was a master mariner. He was employed delivering the caTgo of the Northern Light. The day commenced with light rain. It afterwards came dowu heavier. It was not in witnesses opinion a fit day' to discharge flour after the morning. He witness refused to deliver the flour in question without a receipt was signed for it in good order. Gross-examined by Mr Harvey — He believed the flour was landed in good order. They commenced discharging about half-past eight and knocked ofit between twelve and one o'clock. Drays were sent for the flour about ten o'clock. If the flour had been placed upon the dray immediately it was landed, and the drays covered up, he did not believe it would have been damaged. 'John Whittaker deposed that he was employed by the plaintiffs to cart the flour from the Northern Light. It was a very wet day. It commenced raining between seven and eight o'clock, and it did not clear up till about three o'clock. Witness went to Mr Spence with Mr Finlay, and complained about the flour being landed. Mr Spence said he could land goods during any weather. — Cross-examined by Mr Harvey — It was not a fit day to discharge or receive cargo. — Robert Ecclesfield deposed that he held a survey on some flour in Clark Brothers' store. It was damaged by water. Thirtythree bags were damaged. The damage was assessed at L 2 per ton. — Cross-ex-amined by Mr Harvey — Witness had some flour landed the same day from the Waterman. It was not damaged. He transhipped some also. He had not received any notice of its being damaged. — By the Court — Witness cannot say at what time during the day the flour was carted up to his store. — Thomas Pringle deposed to having held a survey on thirtythree bags of flour ex Northern Light, It was damaged. The damage was assessed at L 2 per ton. — Cross-examined by Mr Harvey — Witness was informed that the .flour was by the Northern Light. — Mr Harvey moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the bill-of-lading stated that the flour was to be at the risk of the shipper when landed, and ia this case the alleged damage was caused after the goods had beenlanded. — Mr Button replied that, independent of the damage by the wet, there was another claim for an item,' which had been caused by the wrongful detention of the goods, inasmuch as the defendant had refused to give them up without a clean receipt, which he was not justified in demanding. His Worship reserved the point, and requested Mr Hajßf to proceed with his defence. ~Mr Harvey called James Spence, who deposed that the flour was landed on the 18fch instant. Witness told the carter (Good) in the employ of the plaintiffs, to remove the flour. He said it would take no harm. He had to cart first for Cowlishaw and Plaisted. Witness received no notice of the survey. The first he heard of it was when he received a bill with the survey attached" to it. Witness landed flour from the Waterman. It ' was not damaged. Some sugar was also landed without being damaged.' The Keera was also discharging that day. Had the plaintiffs taken delivery of the flour within two hours of its being landed it would not have suffered any damage.' Witness had the balance of the flour removed to Clarke Bros store at four o'clock. The plaintiffs left the flour on the wharf all day. Cross-examined by Mr Button — It is customary to demand a clean receipt in giving up goods. It is customary to retain the goods unless a clean receipt is given when the consignee alleges they are damaged. Archibald Scott, stated that he saw some flour landed from the Northern Light, on the 18th of November. It appeared to be all in good order and condition. Witness heard Mr Spence ask Mr Good to remove the flour. He replied, "It is not taking any harm, it is as bad now as it will be." That was about two hours after it had been landed. Witness delivered fortythree bags of flour out of the Waterman ; it was not damaged. Witness heard Mr Spence remonstrate with Mr Good for carting goods that would not take any damage and leaving flour on the wharf. His Worship stated that he was of opinion the flour had been damaged after it was landed in consequence of its not being removed. With regard to the receipt, the defendants had performed their contract under the bill of lading when they landed the flour in good order on the wharf, and were entitled to a clean receipt before delivering it. Judgment was given for the defendants witl> costs. South v. Angus. — Adjourned till the 11th of December, 1867. The Court was then adjourned till eleven o'clock on the following day.

THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH PRESENTED TO US IN A NEW LIGHT. »

TO THE EDITOB OF T.IIE WEST. COAST TIME 3- . it true that His Royal Highness is after all only a snob ? It must be so if what your evening contemporary affirms is true; viz., that the Duke is "disgusted" with the magnificent reception he has met with in the first Australian colony he has visited ; that he has " been heard to say that he was|, vexed and astonished at the sycophantic tendencies " of the colonists; and that he has " declared he has only met two persons wlio may really he classed vnder the head of gentlemen in Adelaide, one of whom was a policeman, and the other the Governor." The public imputation to the Duke of Edinburgh, of what I h», called the vulgar snobbism of all this^l the first deliberate insult that has been offered to His Royal Highness since he first landed m Australia, ,and I trust it will never reach, his ears that any colonial newspaper has put such trash into print Oannot we let him enjoy his hearty reception amongst Ms Mother's subjects, ScombP Shim aS " Pu PPy^a Nov. 27,1867, GAIATKI-