RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume X, Issue 1191, 31 August 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

30. [Before C. 0. Bowen, Esq., R.M.] Robert Jones, charged with being drunk and incapable, was dismissed with a caution, as it was 1 tie first appearance at the Court for that offence. John Healey, an old-offender, was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labor* for stealing a tumbler from the Provincial hotel. Police constable Dodd, John Hossaek, and Robert Warner were examined, and proved the case against the prisoner. The Resident Magistrate, in sentencing prisoner, remarked that the witness Hossack had given his evidence in a very reluctant and unsatisfactory manner; he had told the witness'Warner that he saw the prisoner take up the tumbler and put it in his pocket, and now he came to the Court and said he did not know anything about it, except that he saw prisoner with a tumbler drinking a glass of beer. He (the Resident Magistrate) was not sure as yet whether he should not order ulterior proceedings to be taken-in the matter. The prisoner was then removed. Coatee v. Louis3on—Damages, £15.—This was a case in which the plaintiff, by his attorney, Mr Thomson, sought to recover the. above amount for damage done to a musical box by the defendant. Mr G-arrick for the plaintiff; Mr Harper for the defendant. The case was adjourned from Tuesday last on purpose to allow the counsel on either side to argue the point as to the defendant's liability. Mr Harper, for the defendant, contended that the plaintiff's remedy was against the ship or the ship's agents, and not against the defendant, who was only acting as a Custom-house agent in the matter. The steamer arrived, and the box was landed on the wharf; there was no one there ou behalf of the plaintiff to take charge of it, so the defendant was ordered by the Customs to take the box from the wharf, which he did after it was opened by the Custom-house officers in the usual way, and sent it over the hill to the plaintiff. The learned gentleman said that if the defendant was to be considered in the light of an agent he had not been guilty of any negligence. If any damage was done to the box it roust have boen on the journey from England, or its transit from Lyttelcon to Chrietohurch. He therefore asked ' for a judgment favorable to hie client. 31r Garrick, for the plaintiff, contended that if the defendant was the agent for the plaintiff in the matter in question, he had been guilty of negligence in not forwarding notice of the box having been landed to the plaintiff, so that he might have gone over and seen it opened himself by the Customs. The box ought not to have been used in the manner it had been, having been torn open in a rough manner by a large hammer and chisel. His learned friend eaid they could come on (he chip; but who were they to sue., they could not sue the Captain, he wae gone, and it was quite certain they could not sue a company which was never incorporated, and he did not ese how they could sue an agent /or the company. The defendant bad taken the

responsibility by taking upon himself the custody of the caso, and sending it oror to to the plaintiff. If, on tho other hand, he was not the agent of tho plaintiff, he must bo a trespasser, as it was not denied that he had bad the box opened. Hβ (Hγ Garrick) would contend that in either case tho judgment must go for the plaintiff The Resident Magistrate eaid that after hearing the arguments on both sides, and looking at some cusps on the point, ho must hold that defendant was not the lawful agent of the plaintiff. He ought to have sent notice to the plaintiff. Every facility was now afforded for doing so by the telegraph, and other speedy means of communication. He would therefore, if the parties wished, it, and consented, grant an adjournment, in order to allow the point to be settled bj a re-hearing, as to whether the defendant was a trespasser or not, and how far he was liable. Both Mr Garrick and Mr Harper said they were quite willing to do so. The Resident Magistrate then said that he would take the case for a re-hearing on the 12th September next, and commence proceedings de novo, the costs to abide the issue.