RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Post, Volume XVI, Issue 285, 2 December 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

+ . THIS DAY. (Before Mr. Mansford, R.M.) A BATCH OF DRUNIBN CASES. Emma Dick, charged with being drunk and incapable on Saturday, was discharged with a caution, having been' locked up ever since the offence. William Pcrioigeour, charged with drunkenness, was fined os or 24 hours' imprisonment. Frederick Jones was charged with drunkenness and abusive language. A great deal of conflicting evidence was t iken. A police constable deposed that at about a quarter-past fob'r yesterday morning, the- prisoner, who was walking along the street with two other men, yelling, camo up to him and asked him for a match. Witness told him he hadn't one, and defendant, who was drunk, then becamo very abusive. This was corroborated by au independent witness", named Stewart. Ttvo witnesses, who were called for the defence, deposed that the defendant simply asked the constable for a match, and was told to " move o i." He declined to do so, and was then taken into custody. Both the witnesses denied that he was drunk. A constable, who conveyed defendant from the To Aro station the Central Police Station, said that the defendant admitted to him that he had been drinking at the Melbourne Hotel at a quarter to 4 that morning. Mr. Mnnsford said the police had better taken notice of that statement. His Worship further observed that he did not think it probable that a man would go up to a policeman at 4 o'clock in the morning to ask for a match. He also thought it improbable that a man who had been up all night would be sober at tint time of the morning. He adjourned the case till to-morrow, in compliance with an application of the defendant. Thomas Peterson, a seaman, charged with being drunk and disorderly, was fined IQg, or 48 hours' imprisonment. CJTIL CASES. Wingate v. Wellington Tramways Company. — This was a part-heard claim of £30 for damages sustained by the plaintiff, a butcher, owing to a collision between one of the defendants' engines and a cart driven by the plaintiff, at the corner of Taranaki ami Ingestre-streets, on the 10th ultimo. — Mr. F. M. Oliivier appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Travers, junior, for the defence. — James Perry, a contractor, now deposed that at the time of the collision the engine was going at the rate of 1G to 18 miles an hour. The plaintiff's cart was dragged five or six yards by the engine before the latter b topped — Rob-rt Cooley a carter, gave corroborative evidence. — John Fitohett, a wheelwright, gave evidence to the injury sustained by the cart.— For the defence, John Davidson, the driver of the engine, was called, and deposed that he came down the incline with steam shut off, and the break slightly on. Witness was positive the engine was not going at more than 8 miles an hour. It was impossible for the tram to go at a greater rate than 12 miles an hour. If it went at a greater rate the engine would probably be thrown off the line. If the plaintiff had gone on, iostead of backing, he would have cleared the line, and th.c collision would have been avoded.-r-In cross examination, witoess said that be had told plaintiff that he would rather pay tho money than let the case go into Court. The plaiatiff first of all claimed £8, and afterwards £14. Witness declined to pay the latter sum. — John Scotland also gave evidence — R. A Page, foreman, deposed that he examined the engine on the day of the accident. Everything was in perfect working order.— ln reply to the Magistrate, Mr. Travera said he did not propose to put in the regulations, as there was likely to be some dispute about them, owing to Mr. H ale's report.— Mr. Oliivier thereupon submitted that, as the defendants had failed entirely to show {hat th,e'y bad any right to drive a tramway through the city of Wellington, they were a nuisance ip'ao facto, and, therefore, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to show negligence. The defendants, he urged, were absolutely responsible for the damage which any of her Majesty* subjects might sustain. His Worship (after taking time to consider his decision) h*ld that the collision was caused through the excessive rate at which the man in charge of the engine was driving. He gave judgment for plaintiff for £23, and £8 2s costs. The following' judgment summonses were heard :— R. Barrett v. C. P. Skipper, £2 Is 6 J

ordered to pay on or before 16th December, or seven days' imprisonment. J. H. Hall v. C. H. Marchant, £3 16s 9d; ordered to pay by 9th December, or fourteen days' imprisonment. Judgment for the plaintiffs was given in the following cases, up to the time of our going to press: — Evening Argus v. R. Toop, claim £2 10s; judgment for £2, with costs. J Maginnity v. J. M'Coll, £1 10s 6d.