RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 355, 19 September 1868, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, Sept. 14, IS6B. (Before J. Giles Esq., R.M.) DRUNKARDS. Four inebriates were fiued in the usual penalties. CIVIL CASES. Olsen v. Sheahan.—This was a rather singular case, in which the plaintiff, William Olsen sued Mr Timothy Sheahan, proprietor of the Nelson hotel for £SO damages, alleged to have been sustained by the negligence of defendant, or defendant's servants. Mr Tyler appeared for the plaintiff, and stated the case as appears in evidence. The plaintiff was called and said— On the 26th of August last, I went into defendant's house with a man named Stewart, and called for brandy and bitters. Mrs Sheahan was in the bar, and handed me the bottle over for me to help myself. When I was taking the bitters the stopper came out, and I got more of it than I wanted. I drank the mixture and then I felt a burning in my throat, and fell down. I became insensible. Ido not remember anything till dinner-time next day, when I found myself in the hospital. At that time I felt a burning pain inside, and for about nine days I felt it. I remained in the hospital for twelve days, and during that time subsisted on maizena chiefly and bread soaked in tea. I was not able to work when I left the hospital, and have not been since. I have tried to lift an axe and found that I could not. Yesterday morning I took some solid food, beefsteak but my stomach resisted it, and I threw it up immediately. I have been idle three weeks next Wednesday since this occurrence. I have seen Mr Sheahan during the past week, and he expressed his sorrow and said that he would pay the hospital and the doctor's expenses, but I did not think that fair and refused to take it. I told him that if he had taken me in and taken care of me, I should not have thought so much of it, but he let me lie outside, and I might have been arrested by the police as drunk, and if I had been locked up, I should have died. The hospital expenses were £5 3s, and the fees to the surgeon before I went to the hospital were £2 2s. I cannot now go to work and cannot say when I shall, but hope I shall be well in a week or two.

By defendant.—Mrs Sheahan served me, put the bitter bottle before me. I did not remain in the house more than ten minutes before I took an emetic, and after that I believe went back to Shcahan's, but I do not remember myself, my mates told me. I have a dim recollection of falling down. A musician playing at your house called several times on me in the hospital. Tou did offer to accomodate me till I got well, but I did not like to live at an hotel. You also said you would provide medical attendance till I was well.

By the Bench.—Dr Thorpe gave me the bill for £5 3s for hospital attendance, and he got it from the secretary. I asked what the expenses would be, I was not asked to pay anything before that. Thomas Coucill said that on the night of the 26 th of August he was at Sheahan's, and saw some stuff said to be bitters, being handed round, and several tasted it. It burnt the lips of those who did taste it. Subsequently he saw Olsen in the chemists shop. He was in great agony, aud complained that it felt as though saws were cutting his inside out. After this they took him to the hospital, and they would not receive him there and subsequently he was taken to the British American and Dr Thorpe sent for. Witness told Sheahan that Olsen was piosncd, aud Shehans said he did not think he was.

By defendant, —"Witness saw plaintiff at the chemists shop, and then left him. He next saw him afterwards at defendant's house, and remained with him till he was taken to the hospital. Plaintiff had been drinking during the day. It was some time after he left him at the chemist's that witness met him at the dance room. It might have been half-an-hour or three quarters. At that time he was sitting down with his hand on his chest, and it was some time after that that he fell down. In the dance room he complained of being very bad.

Charles Stewart said, that he had a drink with plaintiff, and the latter had brandy and bitters, which was handed ,by Mrs Sheahan. Plaintiff directly on swallowing it, said he was poisoned, The witness poured some of the bitters out, and tasted it, and it burned his mouth. He then went with plaintiff to the chemist's, and the latter had a seidlitz powder. They went back immediately, thinking it would wear off. Plaintiff was sitting down the last time he saw him, and was then complaining of pain. Witness was dancing and did not see plaintiff again, till he saw him at the British American. He

was then in great pain, and it took three of them to hold him, he was so violent from the effects of pain. By defendant, —They had the drinks at the bar. The bitters were handed to him. The head came off when ho was helping himself. It was late when he saw him at the British American, 11 or 12 oclock.

Dr. Thorpe proved that on the night of the 2Gth August, ho was called to see the plaintiff at the British American hotel. He found him suffering great pain in the stomach and throat, and he appeared to have been partially intoxicated. On examining the throat, he found it greatly inllamed, covered with tenacious mucus, and marked with red streaks. AVitness had previously been informed that the man had swallowed a strong acid, and he administered an autidote, first giving chalk,and afterwards procuring vomiting. There was no smell of spirits in the vomit, but it was frothy as if from effervescence. Previously to his seeing him, witness was told that the man had vomited ; he stopped with plaintiff an hour, and at the expiration of that time expressed himself so much better that he said he would be able to return with his mates. Witness went home and directed them to call as they went by for an opiatey draught, but finding they did not come ho weut down again He found Olsen had got worse and he had him taken to the hospital, where he remained twelve days ; while there plaintiff spat up shreds of the mucous membrane, and up to the time of his leaving was not able to take any solid matter. Witness was of opinion that the symptoms had been occasioned by plaintiff swallowing some irritant substance, such as acid. He asked the defendant what Olson had taken, and the latter said some acid used in cleaning the counter, vitriol would have produced those symptoms. He was told that the acid had been given in mistake for bitters. A man with Mr. iSheahan said that only a few drops had been swallowed by plaintiff. I think plaintiff will feel the effects some time. He should apprehend from it indigestion and inability to swallow solid food, Stricture of the gullet is sometimes occasioned by swallowing acids, but he did not think the quantities taken sufficient in this case. Plaintiff left the hospital himself, and was not discharged. At that time he was not well enough to work with a pick and shovel. Witness' fee was £2 2s, and the hospital charges, £5 3s. By defendant—Plaintiff presented the appearance of having been drinking on that occasion. All patients that can pay are expected to pay for hospital attendance. Plaintiff recalled by Mr Tyler, said that he had had a few glasses that day, but he was not drunk. He had never been drunk in his life.

The defendant, on being sworn, said that two or three days before this occurred, he got some stuff to clean the counter. It was brought in a bitter bottle, and he planted it in a corner behind the ordinary range of bottles. After the man had taken the stuff he remained on the premises some time, and witness did not know he was ill till he heard he had been taken to the hospital. On hearing of it he offered plaintiff every accommodation, and to provide all medical attendance, if it were for six months, till he was quite and completely well. He offered this in addition to paying any expenses plaintiff had been put to. He had every sympathy with the man, and only came to the Court in order to let the public know the real facts of the case. He was quite ready to make every compensation that was fair, though he did not consider he was legally liable. He would leave the question entirely in the Magistrate's hands. Mr Tyler addressed the Bench in order to show that the damages claimed were not excessive, and contended that by the defendant's own showing by allowing a bitter bottle containing a poisonous fluid to remain on a shelf where other bitters were, he had been guilty of great negligence, far more, in fact than sufficient to Tender him liable in law.

The Magistrate said that there was no doubt as to the defendant's liability, though at the same time there was no doubt that what he said was true, that the occurrence was quite accidental and he was not personally to blame. Still it must be obvious to himself, and everybody else, that he must be responsible for what took place in his establishment, for it was certain that when customers came for drinks and were supplied with poison, he must be answerable. He proceeded to remark on the fact of the plaintiff having left the hospital of his own accord, which might account for his recovery not being complete at this time, aud also on the medical evidence, which did not seem to point out any serious injury to health, or consequent disease that

<could not be avoided by care. Thedefe d»nt by the offer he made to accomodate the plaintiff, and pay medical attendance till he was well had done all possible, but the plaintiff had declined to accept it. Taking all the facts of the case into consideration, he thought the justice of rho case would be met by awarding £3O and costs. In compliance with an application from the defendaut the amount was ordered to be paid by £5 weekly instalments. Tuesday, September 15. (Before J. Giles Esq., R. M.) OBTAINING DRINKS UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. A "Walker was charged with obtaining five drinks from H Bradley on false pretences. It appeared that the prisoner walked into the prosecutor's house and ordered five drinks, including one for the landlady, and On being requestod to pay for them said that he had no money. He was intoxicated at the time. There was no evidence given to substantiate the charge as laid, as no false intense was proved, and the prisoner was discharged. Some unimportant civil cases in which there was no appearance of defendants were heard. WARDEN'S COURT. Tuesday September 15. 1868. (Before J. Giles Esq., Warden.) MARSHALL AND PARTY V. TENNANT AND PARTY. This was a case that had been heard at the last sitting of the Warden's Court at Addison's Flat, and the decision only had been postponed till yesterday. The facts were simply these Tenant and party, who held a large tunnel gave complainants permission to make a drive from it, and thereby drain their own claim. After some time the -earth fell ra and stopped up the drive, and the defendants refused to allow them to repair it, although they offered to box it in such a manner as to secure it, and the defendant's claim against future injury. The question for the Warden to consider, was whether after once permitting the complainants to putin the drive, andgoto considerable expense, it was equitable for the defendants at once to put a stop to further working. The Warden after going minutely over the facts, came to the conclusion that his judgment would be for the complainants, but in order to provide against the alleged possibility of damage to the defendants, the complainants should give satisfactory security to the amount of £SO. The complainants were also to work in such n manner, and at such times as not to interfere with the defendants in any way, and in addition were adjudged to pay 30s per week for the use of the tunnel. If the defendants objected to these terms an alternative was left open to them to pay £SO to complainants, to compensate for their loss and expense in making the drive, on the permission obtained from the defendants.

In reply to Mr Tyler, the Warden said he would grant £6 6s as a professional fee in the costs, as the question was a new one and a reasonable case to employ counsel in. It should be generally known that when leave was granted to parties to work ground, it could not be revoked at a moment's notice, after parties had been at expense and loss of time. WEST AKD PARTY V. LANGRISH AND PARTY. This was a complaint by West and party against Langrish and party, the former alleging that the defendants held one hundred and four feet too much ground. Both parties have claims on German Terrace, which adjoin. From the statement of the complainants, who were six in number, it appeared that they held ground on the frontage system 208 ft by 600 ft in depth, whilst the defendants, who were seven in party, held 380 feet in depth, by 600 feet frontage. West and party therefore alleged that the defendants held more frontage than the regulations allowed, and sough to take off 104 feet, in order to bring their ground up to the quantity they were entitled to.

The Warden after hearing both parties, decided that the defendants did hold more ground than the regulations entitled them to, and awarded the extent sued for to complainants.

Wednesday September 16.1868(Before J. Giles Esq., Warden.) The following applications were ;granted:— Larsen and party, to construct a •dam, north of Beadman's creek. Homer and party, to construct a 'dam at German Terrace.

Thompson and party, to construct a head race at Deadnian's creek. Williamson and party for a head race. G-idley and party, for a headrace on Giles Terrace. Coatsworth and party, for special site for a paddock. C. Norman, special site for 35 feet at Ballarat Creek, was refused. ,