RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VII, Issue 1040, 24 January 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, Januahy 21. (Before Joseph GKles. Esq., E.M.) ASSAULT. John Landy, charged with assaulting, Michael Sullivan in Palmerston street, on the 14th instant, pleaded not guilty. From the evidence of complainant and witnesses it appeared that the defendant had spit in complainant's face, threatened to pull his nose, called him names and challenged him to fight, whereupon they fought until both bled freely. Landy, as the first aggressor, was fined 40a and 14s costs, or, in default of payment, 14 days' imprisonment with hard labor. CIVIL CASES. Joshua Annett v. T. J. Jones.—■ Claim for £ls lis 2d, goods sold and delivered, and for horse hire. Judgment for £2 15s Bd, and costs 9s. Walter Lavette v. Peter Williams.— Claim for £3 15s 6d, balance of account. Defendant admitted the debt, with the exception of an item for eggs, which he t>aid were unsaleable, and that his customers at the -Lyell had pelted bim with some for selling them as fresh. The case of eggs had been returned to plaintiff who had refused to take delivery, but had offered to make an allowance thereon of 10s. Judgment given for amount claimed, less the price charged for the eggsOlive v. Carne.—Claim for £2 Plaintiff had paid £1 5s into Court, which he pleaded was the full value of the gravel supplied, and the price first charged by plaintiff. Judgment given for the amount paid in, less 10s, defendant's expenses. Annett v. Jones. —Claim for £6 ss, for furniture and use of boat. Nonsuit. Suisted Brothers v. Charles Leech.— Claim for £3 10 lid. No appearance of defendaut. Judgment for full amount claimed and costs. ! Levi v. Cook.—Claim for £l2 Is, balance of account for work done under contract, in painting and decorating hotel in Wharf street, and for extra work thereon. Mr Fisher for defendant. - The items for extras were disputed. After hearing evidence of plaintiff, defendant, and three witnesses, the Court gave Judgment for £4 10s, and costs 19s. Buller Towing Track Company v. Charles Crowle and J, Jacobsen.— Disputed claim for £6l 7s, tolls due for use of towing track. Mr Fisher, counsel for plaintiff, produced certificate of incorporation of company, and gazette notice granting protection for the track, and right to collect tolls, also certificate from the Provincial Engineer, as to tha track being properly constructed. H. Gh Hughes, Secretary deposed that no notice had been given by the Provincial Engineer that the track was out of order or that the contractor engaged to look after it, had failed to fulfil the terms of his contract. The defendants were owners of the cargo boats Fair Wind and North Star and thov had admitted that the tonnage of these boats were as charged for in bill of particulars, five and a-half and six and a-quarter tons. The Company were now sueing for the full rate of £1 per ten permitted to be charged under the Government regulations, although it was customary, when the boatmen paid their tolls without dispute, to make an allowance of half rates. By C. Crowle: The regulations specified £1 per ton on all goods carried, but to save the owners of boats the exponce of weighing every parcel of goods carried, the Company had arranged to charge on the given measurement of the boats. You have offered to pay for the amount of goods shown on your waybills but the company would not accept your statement, you rendered an account for £SO for a horse killed on the track, but there was no proof that it was killed by reason of the bad state of the track. Defendant referred to terms under which protection was granted and saidhe did not object to pay tolls, but objected to the state of the track which he alleged was useless for towing purposes, and that it had never been passed by the Provincial Engineer in its present state but only conditionally on certain repairs being effected, which had as yet been neglected. Mr Hughes stated that all such conditions had been complied with. The Court ruled that the company were entitled to charge tolls until protection for the track was cancelled by the Superintendent, and that evidence as to the state of the track was beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and had no bearing on the present case. Defendant then pleaded that the certificate of protection only gave the right to the company to charge £1 per ton on the goods actually carried, and not on the presumed carrying

capacity of each boat. That both the boats belonging to himself and Jacob* son often went up with less than full and that the tolls now Bought to be charged would amount to 25s or 30s per ton in many instances. He gave from recollection the amount of freight carried on several occasions* all less than the amounts charged for,, and alleged that they had never on any occasion taken as much freight by 30 cwt. as the boats were licensed to carry. By Mr Fisher: The boats have been twice measured by the Harbor Master, and the present measurement is less than the first. They were measured the second time at my request. By the Court: The Fairwind has carried 4£ tons and the North Star 5 tons, but not more at any one trip* Mr Fisher pleaded that no proof* had been given by the defendant that the boats had not Carried their full tonnage. The Court ruled that there was no proof or presumption that the boata had actually carried the goods charged for, and the onus of proof rested with the company, who ought to guard themselves by express agreement as to rates to be charged and not guess at or assume the weight of the freights. Mr Fisher pleaded that an arrange* ment had been made, with all the boatman, as proved by the Secretary, that the tolls should be rated according to the measurement of the boats, and that defendants only sought to evade payment of a recognised claim. The Court, accepting Crowle's statement that the utmost freight carried by the two boats at any one time had not exceeded nine and a half tons, assessed the bill accordingly, upon items charged for both boats together, and at 4 tons 10 cwt where the bill showed the Fairwind had gone up-river alone; ruling also that any breach of conditions under which * * tection for the track had been granted, did not preclude the company from charging tolls until such protection had been cancelled by the Superin* tendent. Judgment was recorded for £SO 7s, costs £2 lGs, and counsels fee £3 3s. .

Wednesday, January 22, Thomas Hennelly and James Fawkner for being drunk were each fined 10s or in default 24 hours imprisonment. Henryl Maguire, a constant offender, was fined for being drunk 20s. and costs 10s, or in default 48 hours imprisonment.