Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Magistrate’s Court.

(Before Messrs W. Qoltmaa arid W Petit, J.P’s.)

Waimate,' Fbbroarv 27tii, 1902.

R. White ' and CL ’Sullmin'were charged with supplying liquor ,to pro-, hibited persons, ’but as the Justices had no jurisdiction, the - case was adjourned rill Tuesday next. Railway Department v. W. Quinn* charging him with allowing 50 head of cattle to wander on the railway line at Makikihi on - 11th January. Mr J, W. White, Grown Prosecutor, for the Department, and Mr Hamilton for defendant.

Mr White said that tho day on which the offence occurred was Saturday,'January 11. and the express was delayed about seven minutes through thi.Tmob of cattlo. He called S. Horsnell, railway guard, gave evidence that tho'mob of cattle were on tho line between Makikihi and St. Andrews on January 11. Tho train lose seven m'mnles between the two stations. Had thev run into the cattlo they probably would have been put oil the line.

D. Murphy, platelayer, gave oorrobalivo evidence. To Mr Hamilton • Tho fences were in good order, having lately been put right.

J. C. Hancox. platelayer, gave similar evidence. Tho gate could not have been pushed open from the

paduocl

Donald McKay, shepherd, working for Mr W. Quinn, remembered branding the cattle in question on JnniUnw 11. Tho gate had a defective fastening, and it opened by anything bumping against ic. He saw tins happen on the 11th, and tried to keep them back, but 43 got through before he readied tho gate. Ha took tho cattle over the line in tho morning, Auer branding, two calves rubbing against tho gate caused it loshako open. He had applied for the fastening of the gate to be attended to about six weeks before tho accident to Mr D. 'Murphv. 1). Murphy (recalled) said tho gate was perfectly secure, and ha had never heard any compdaiuls about it. Tho chain on the gate was changed after the accident to make it fasten on the inside like all other railway gaton. This, was the ease for the Crown:

Mv Hamilton, for the. defence, said that the charge they had to anmvciwas one of allowing cattlo to wander, and that was the only one they had to answer. Quinn did not know of the cattle bfdng there, and so could not bo said to have ’’ allowed ” tho cattlo to Wilful or on the line, neither was it a cm so of negligence on Mr Quinn’s part, lie did not think there was a case to an -aver.

Mr White held that it did not matter how the cattle got on to lb« line, ns long as it was proved that they were there.

The Bench were of opinion that Uv re was a case to meet, and Mr Hamilton called,

William Quinn. the defendant. He had always done his host to keep his ck : tlo oli the line. The fastener was defective at the time in question, hut Was right at the present time. lie did not say that the cattle got out on this occasion 'through the burnt fence. 11-) dll not mention the fastener on that occa.-ijii. 110 had been cautioned by the Railway Department not to allow his cattle to trespass on thfi lino. . lie had hsver heard before the accident that the fast-utcr was u bad one.

iVilliaua G reba, blacksmith for Mr W. Quinn, was present on lbs city tho cattle pot out. Tho fastenin'' on the g.uo was very easily opened by the cattle, and they opened it on this occasion.

Tha Bench were of opinion that, as the Railway Ifepartmonl had charge of the gates and they had allowed a defective fastening to remain on ,this gate, the information should bo dismissed. As the 'cattle did actually trespass, each side would pay their own coats.

CIVIL C.ISE3. A. Hayes and another v. XV.IT,"WiIIs, claim £2 os 6d. Mr Clement for plaintiff obtained judgment by default, with costa 15s Gd. M. Mowbinney v. M. Burke, claim £ls 2s. Mr Hamilton , foi plaintiff. Judgement was given for amount claimed, and'eosts £T 11s.

T. Richards (Mr Hamilton) v. T. McCarthy, claim £7 t*. Judgment went "by default, with coats 15s Gd. Priest and Holdgite v. A. Aitkenhead,’claim £1 14s Id. Mr Atwill for plaintiffs. Judgment was given for. amount 'with costs"ss. Manchester Bros. v. J. Paulin, claim £1 Bs. No appearance of defendant; Mr A. 0. Manchester for plantiffs. Judgment was given for amount claimed, with costs Os. W. Guildford v. Dohrrann, claim £2 10s. Mr Hamilton for defendant

W. Guildford gave evidence that the morn y was due fo s vie b/ an entice. Half ihe fee had been paid, but the balance had not been. To Mr Hamilton : The balance was due in October, 1901, and he did not ask for it till January, 1902, He was paid £2 10s. the first instalment of a service in 1901, on January‘24. No dispute had arisen between wit-ms' and defendant until recently. Had sent word to Mr Dohrman that ho could not bring his entire to the latter’s place, but the latter ifcUSE bring his mare to meet the entire. He received no reply to that message. He credited the, amount paid to the 1901 service and riot to the 1900 service.

Mr ’Hamilton pointed out the: unusual nature of tho method of putting’s.' paylirimt to the credit of the more recent account. It was evident that tho plaintiff knew tho second claim would be disputed, but’that the ‘first'co'uld not be, "and hence it was credited to the second. "A debtor had. a right do say what account any amount shdrild be put against. He qupted law bearing on the -question. H. Dohrman was the first witness for the defence. The money he 'sent Was for the 1900 account. Ho had received no accounts from Mr Guildforp, who merely called for the money. He did not recognise any liability for the 1901 service, as it was not completed. At this stage the court adjourned for a land sale, and on resuming Ma White appeared for plaintiff. Mr Dohrman continued giving evidence. He eaid that Mr Guilford had arranged to call. In, previous years the mate was left at Mr Guildford’s. Mr Guilford called twice but did not appear again . though witness had sent word that he would not bring the mare. If the mare were in foal he would pay the full amount. ; J. McGimpeey said that in November 'Guildford told witness to tell Mr Dohrman that he could not bring: :hjp entire toiDohrman’* on account of , v " N ", , t A 'A, , , \ • f :

the distance. Dohrman had replied that he would not bring his mare to the entire, and witness told this to Guildford. J. H. Mitchell, farmer, stated that it was ihe .custom when an arrangement was made for the owner bt the stallion to call at the place where the mare was. W. Guildford recalled,‘..said that he had gone down once and Mr Dohrman had brought up the mare once. They arranged that if the mare required further service .he would bring the mare fo a certain place. Mr. White said that if a debtor'sends money without any directions it may be placed to the credit of any account the creditor wished. The Bench were of the opinion that Mr Dohrman had paid the money for the 1900 service. Mr Dohrman had agreed to jky the full 1901 fee if the mare proved in foal. Judgment would 'be for defendant, with costs £2 Is.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDA19020301.2.15

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 172, 1 March 1902, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,247

Magistrate’s Court. Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 172, 1 March 1902, Page 3

Magistrate’s Court. Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 172, 1 March 1902, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert