Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 135, 5 August 1880
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
Tuesday, August 3. (Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY, Three first offenders, one of whom was a female, were let off with a fine of 5a., or twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. John Jones, charged with being drunk and disorderly, was fined 10s., or fortyeight hours. He had been several times previously convicted. William Power, who had been in company with the last prisoner, and shared his joys, was now his companion in trouble, and had also to forfeit 10s., or take the alternative. AN UNLICENSED COACH. Thomas Cotton was fined ss. for carrying passengers in an unlicensed * stage coach. Accused had recently taken over Mr. Wilcocks’ coach business, and was ignorant of the fact that the license had expired. AN UNPAID DRINK BILL. Baldwin v. Hodgson.—Claim Lsl. Mr. Ireland for plaintiff; Mr. Branson for the defendant. Mr. Ireland questioned whether his Worship had power to alter the decision which was given at a former sitting of the Court, but his Worship decided to re-hear the case. Joseph Baldwin swore that the amounts in the bill of particulars were correct. :.’Ai'l settlement had been made up to the Bth February, which left a balance of L3lloa. Gd. due. From the 9th February- up to ! the last date mentioned in the bill, the items had been supplied in goods and... cash. Most of the items were for bottles of beer sent to defendant’s house. ■ Could not swear as to ho w much Shad been supplied over the bar ; but thought L 3 would cover - what was given in drinks. Mr. Branson objected to the witness looking at a memo, which he had in his hand, and asked his Worship to stop the witness from being impertinent. He (Mr. Branson) had been told that witness had given it out that witness was going to - make a “ holy show ” of him. Witness denied this statement. By Mr. Branson—Defendant has often returned sacks full of bottles, and some of the bottles had been re-filled. s The liquor supplied was colonial bder, drawn out of witness’ casks, and put into:the, bottles. Up to the sth February, 1880,, was paid in full, by the purchasedf a horse for L2O. Never received any other moneys. Have not my books here, but can send for them. . . ; j Mr. Branson asked that the books might be sent for, and the case was adjourned - until the books arrived. < DEFAULT. Jamieson v. Hammond.—Claim,. L 3 Is.. 6d. Judgraent by default for amount and costs, 6s. ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR. . Anderson v. Passmore.—Claim, Lll os. ; : Id. Mr. Williams for plaintiff, Mr. Purnell for defendant. John Anderson, jun., deponed—l am a r member of the firm of J. and A. Anderson, contractors for the Rakaia and Ash- ' : burton Forks Railway. Wo carried the goods mentioned in the summons for de- " fendant. A conversation took place with the directors in the presence of the de- * fendant, in which we consented to allow ; goods to be carried on the line at Government rates. The line at the. time was under our control. Mr. Passmore was the engineer who controlled the laying > > down of the line. A certain amount of, ; expense was incurred by the firm in carrying these goods for defendant. Mr. Passmore asked me about the price of & coal. I stated that we could supply coal cheaper than outside persons, as we-were large consumers. The result was that' Mr. Passmore ordered coal from us, and gave us a cheque for the amount. The claim is only for carriage froni Rakaia to Sherwood. If the coal had gone up con-;' signed to Mr. Passmore the expense would have been increased, but being sent up consigned to J. and A. Anderson, the cost of transhipment was • avoided. When the contract time expired the contractors were to Cease holding possession, and to pass over to the engineer of the'u Company. We still have control of the railway, as we have not received payment from the Company. The conditions for payment have not been complied with. Mr. Passmore did refuse to give a certificate passing the work, but that is not the cause of this action. When we ■ had' the -A conversation with Mr. Passmore, I asked him why he did not work : his steam plough, and he answered it would not pay to bring up coal for the work, but !' did not offer to bring up coal free. When the coal was supplied we did not put :in, a • claim for the carriage. The reason why the account was not sent in for carriage > from Rakaia to Sherwood was because the amount was not a large one, and it was not usual for us to send in accounts untiF, they were sent out for carriage for the whole district. , , .
Mr. Purnell explained that the plaintiffs were contractors for the construction of, ‘ the Rakaia and Ashburton Forks Railway,, and Mr. Passmore was the engineer who, managed the construction in the interests. r of the company. When the contract time f expired the works passed ov6r- to the " company. The contract time expired in August, and from that time the contractors , were only allowed to usethe railway. The defendant, as engineer of the company, . was allowed by the directors to use the' ; line also. In a conversation with Mr. Passmore, the plaintiffs had offered to carry up coal for the use of defendant’s steam plough free of any cost. In point of fact it was a friendly action. In consequence of Mr. Passmore refusing to give a certificate passing the work, this case had arisen.' Mr. Passmore would never, have thought of having the coal brought up for working the plough if he had calculated on having to pay for the carriage. On this supposition, he had sold some of ’ ’ the coals to his neighbors, and had not v added the cost of carriage. Mr. Purnell’ .; read portions of the Act to show that:’, the plaintiffs had no legal right to charge : ; for carriage. Mr. Passmore gave evidence bearing - out the effect of his counsel's statements. Cross-examined by Mr. Williamsj- : he said—l am not aware of. an engine having been run specially for the benefit of myself and daughter, but it may have been. In such case the cost would come out of Messrs. Anderson’s pocket. Under soma circumstances coal does not cost anything. When steam, was up and working for the contractors, the cost of coal consumed in going from Rakaia to Sherwood would not cost anything. There was an arbitration case about the line, and it went in favor of the contractors. Messrs. Anderson sent in a bill for the amount claimed, and ? Mr. Alex. Anderson has made an application for the amount, and I told him that the firm had offered : to do the carriage free. Paid for tranship-'’ ment on one occasion, and allowed Messrs. Anderson to charge for any money ’out of’ ' pocket. An ordinary train would bring up sixty-three tons. I had a right tousa the engine after August. The firm had to 1 work after that date under my supervision; I had special privileges as engineer, and it was an understood thing that the engineer : could use the line. • . . r
Oxley, deposed—Am the manager on ' the Ashburton and Rakaia Railway, and remember a conversation between Adder- ‘ son and Passmore. Mr. Anderson 'offered to bring up coals and anything else for Mr. Passmore as a favor. I thought it was a matter of obligation by one gentle* ;, man to another.
Henry Sheppard, agent for J. and A,. ; A nderson, on the Rakaia and Ashburton Forks Railway, was’ present at a conversation between the parties. Mr. Anderson arranged to bring up the c0a1,., but there was no offer to bring up the ;•
goods for nothing. It was my place to keep accounts of goods being brought up, and if there had been an offer to bring up the goods free I should not have kept account of them. After referring to the District Railways Act, his Worship said the point to be • decided was whether the plaintiffs were common carriers, and, if so, it would be necessary to show that they had a regular scale of charges. It would seem, however, that the plaintiffs were, at the time, only servants of the Company, and the Company not having declared the railway open, by complying with the Act, they had no right whatever to carry goods. The plaintiffs had taken upon themselves the right to carry goods on the line, at their own risk, and therefore they would have to take the consequences. Plaintiffs would be nonsuited with costs. Mr. Williams gave’ notice of appeal. ' THE DRINK BILL. Mr. Baldwin produced his books, and found Hodgson’s account in the ledger, ■Which started with a balance of account Ll 3 os. 6d. : By Mr. Branson —My books are correct. The item “By one mare, April, L 30,” is correct. Do not know what part of April it was. The charge I made per bottle of beer was 6d. The greater portion of the beer defendant had from me was colonial beer. Will contradict the defendant if he swears that most of the items were for drinks sold over the bar. By Mr. Ireland—When defendant got drink at the bar ho usually paid for them. I am certain that since the settlement with the mare that defendant has not had drinks to the extent of more than L 3 for which he has not paid. , George Smerdie, sworn, said he had stayed about a month or five weeks with Hodgson. While I lived at Hodgson’s, I sometimes went to Baldwin’s for beer. The most of the beer was in shilling bottle?. Used to go three or four times a week, and often five or six times in the day. I might have got fourteen bottles of beer at a time. By Mr. Branson —The beer was bottled draught beer. I used to see the beer put into the bottles. J. Waylie sworn, said he was bookkeeper to Mr. Baldwin. Had seen bottles of beer taken away for Hodgson. The items were entered into the ledger from the day book. By Mr. Branson—lf lam away for a day or two Mr. Baldwin puts the items on a piece of paper, and I enter the amounts from the slips. Have seen Hodgson get beerin bottles. Mr. Branson submitted that all the items, with the exception of these marked as “ Cash,” should be struck out. It had been held that the Trippling Act was in force in the Colony, and he denied that the objection was a technical one. It was only- equivalent to a person bringing a claim before that Court for an amount exceeding LIOO, which would be beyond the j jurisdiction of his Worship ; so, in like manner, the Court could not adjudicate on a case like the present. The fact of the Tippling Act being in force within the .colony, placed the claim of the plaintiff beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr. Branson asked for a nonsuit. Mr. Ireland argued that the Tippling Act was meant to prohibit publicans from allowing men to remain on the premises and run up a score for drinks. The case nowbefore the Court was entirely different, as the drinks had been supplied in bulk and taken off the premises. His "Worship quoted the case of Highett v. Macdonald, N.Z. Jurist, vol. 3, and said the Tippling Act in its entirety was in force within the colony, and therefore all goods supplied at one time, which did not amount in the whole to 205., could not be recovered. Therefore all items in the claim which did not in the total amount to that sum would have to be erased, and, as far as he saw, the only items which could be recovered were those for cash. The alleged settlement of L2O could not be entertained as it only settled the claim-in part, and, leaving a balance, the whole account would necessarily be in ' dispute. The sum of L2O would go as a contra against the amount which the • plaintiff could legally recover. Judgment would be given for the defendant with costs L2 2s. Mr. Baldwin gave notice of appeal. CLAIMS FOR OATS. Murphy v. Little. Claim LI 14s. Gd. Mr. O’Reilly for plaintiff; Mr. Branson for defendant. Judgment was given for LI ss. 4d., and costs 15s. Murphy v. .Little. Claim Ll 7 Is. 6d., value of oats belonging to plaintiff, which it was alleged had been wrongfully appropriated by defendant for his own use Mr. O’Reilly for plaintiff; Mr, Branson for defendant. A portion of the claim was for L 5, damages, through the loss -sustained by plaintiff in not being able to crop his land in consequence of inability to obtain seed oats. The defence was that the oats had been taken by plaintiff’s permission in payment of an account. Judgment was given for Ll 3 17s. 4d., and costs L 3 4s. His Worship refused an application by Mr. Branson to appeal. APPLICATION FOB REHEARING. Mr. O’Reilly applied for a rehearing in the case of Little v. Murphy, heard on the 27th July, but his Worship would not grant the application.
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 135, 5 August 1880
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.
Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.
These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.
Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.
Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.
Print, save, zoom in and more.
If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.
The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.