RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1935, 19 July 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This i lay.

(Before A. Cbetham-Strode, Esq., 11. M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Eor drunkenness and disorderly conduct, the following persons were fin d the sums opp site their names, with the alternative s mentioned B. Farrow, 20s, or 48 hours’ imprisonment ; Mary Lewis, 10s, or 24hours ; Barbara Weldon, L 5, or 14 days; John Gill, 10s, or 24 hours ; J. Tobin, discharged. CHARGE OK STEAUNii ERO.M A VESSEL. Jane Stewart, alias Jane August, on remand, was charged with stealing a shawl from the schooner Esther Ann, the property of a seaman named Brenchley. William Griffiths, a seaman on hoard the schooner Esther Ann, said the prisoner slept onboard the schooner on the night of 11th July. Iho prisoner slept in the fore part of the vessel, and he in the a'ter part. The witness roused her before daylight, in order that she might get away unobs.rved. .“She asked him to get her shawl ami bonnet, ami he gave her one like the shawl produced. He had seen one like it on Brencldey’s bed. The prisoner was discharged. Civil Cases. J. Holman v. W. Baymond.—This was an undefended claim for L 5, cash lent; and a verdict was given for the plaintiff for the amount. The Daily Thutr and Company, Limited v. Emmertou, LII 3?.—The defendant did not appear, and a verdict was given for the amount with costs. W. H. Walker v, I ett, L 3 2s Bd.~ Judgment by default for the plaintiff Edmond v. Stewart, L 3 for the plaintiff by default. Pish v, Cutten and others, directors of the Ida Valley Quanz Mining Company.—Mr Wilson for the plain!iff ;Mr Haggitt for the defendants. This was a claim for L2O for coods sold and delivered to the Company, which it was affirmed had been obtained under fraudulent misrepresentation, on the g ound that the manager of the ' om any, Mr Hawkins, represented the Company to be solvent, when, in fact, they wore insolvent, and in consequence the goods were obtained. Mr Wilson, having stated the case, called as a witness'Mr H. S. Pish who said lie supplied the defendants with goods in April. The opler was given by Mr Hawkins, secretary to the company. Mr Haggitt objected to a question by Mr Wilson until ,t was proved that Mr Hawkins was special manager of the persons sued. The witness knew Messrs Cut-ten and others were directors of the Company, and

I that Mr Hawking was secretary to the comI pany. Mr Wilson maintained that the directors were liable for the acts of the manager in a case of this sort. In reply to a question by the Magistrate the witness said he knew Mr Hawkins to have been secretary of the Ida Vail y Quartz Mining Company. He had had other transactions with the company which were paid for by Mr Hawkins. Georec M array knew that Mr Hawkins was manager of the Ida Valley Quartz Mining Company under the Act. He also knew Messrs Cuttcn, Lloyd, and Thomson were directors. The point was reserved. The witness said Mr Hawkins represented that the goods ordere 1 were to build a manag r’s house, that the bill would be sent in the usual way at the end of the mouth. He did not suppose the whole amount would he paid at once, but as much would he paid as the directors could afford to pay I as the gold came down. The goods were acI eordingly sent; gold came down since, but no j money had been paid. In reply to Mrllaggitt 1 witness said he never had any [ with the defendants on the subject. | conversation with Mr Hawkins took place at the time the goods were ordered. He knew the capital of the company was absorbed aud expected to get paid out of the proceeds of the gold. Mr Haggitt did not know what there was to answer. There was no proof of misrepresentation by the manager ; the directors had not personally promised payment, nor had they represented that gold would come down, knowing that none would arrive. The action was also brought against the directors personally, whereas Mr Hawkins was not agent for them individually hut for the Company.- He moved therefore for a nonsuit, on the ground that no declaration made by'the counsel for the plaintiff was proved. | Mr Wilson maintained that Mr Hawkins : had been guilty of misrepresentation, in j stating that the goods would be paid for, knowing that the Company was insolvent, I The second point was a breach of warrantry, I as the directors, through their manager, had 1 promised to pay out of the gold as it came I down, and none had been paid. | The Magistrate said he was of opinion the j evidence was not sufficient to support the | charges of fraduleut misrepreseutatiou, so as to make the persons sued personally liable. The goods were ordered in the usual way, | and it w uld be necessary to prove that Mr Hawkins was specially instructed by them | to make the contract to establish him as I their personal agent. The plaintiff was nonsuited. Cunning Brothers v. aptain Wil iams, of the schooner Prima Donna.—Mr Hodgkins for the plaintiffs ; Mr Wilson for the defendant This was a claim for L 39 Is, for loss sustained through non-receipt of 71 cases of fruit, shipped at Sydney on hoard the school er Prima Donna. Mr Hodgkins stated the c ise. The defendant admitted having received the goods on board. Mr Wilson t ok exception to the receipt for the goods being accepted as evidence, as it ought to have been exchanged for a bill of lading bearing a stamp. The Magistrate considered that the receipt was admissible in evidence. The plaintiff, on the arrival of the vessel at Dunedin, applied on board for his goods, and was informed by Williams, who represented himself as captain, that paid of the consignm-nt bad been washed or thrown overlx) ml. He received all the ma'ze shipped and some of the oranges, but 71 cases of fruit were short. H estimated them to be worth lls a case. The captain refused to pay the loss when applied to, saying, “ had he been owner, he might have compromised the matter, but having only joined her at toe last moment before sailing, he would pay nothing excepting it was ordered through j the Court.” All former shipments received by the plaintiff bad been sowed in the hold of sailing vess Is. By sailing vessels he never had a case of fruit on deck, but by I steam’ rs he bad. In general, fruit would j keep better on deck than below, i Mr Wilson moved for a nonsuit on the I ground fat there was no proof that the receipt had been signed by the per. on whose name it bore (Mr Dredge), nor that he was what it stated him to be—master of tl;e ghoi) at the time ; nor was there aiiy evidence to show what quantity of fruit went on board, Mr Hodgkins contended that the receipt was sufficient evidence of the goods having been received on board, and that the master for the timebeiiig. as agent for the owners, was the person to be sued. Mr Wilson waived th ; nonsuit point, and vested the defence on the ground that perils and dangers of the sea wcie excepted in the receipt given for goods. He maintained that the cargo was deck carjo, and was specially put on deck by the ship)) r. The vessel was in danger on a co tain day, and that, after consultation with the mate and crew, it was resolved to throw part of the cargo overboard, to save her. That had been done irrespective of the persons to whom the goods were consigned. William Williams, capta-'u of the Prima Donna, said he was not master of the vessel when the cargo was taken on board. A quantity of f-nit was on deck having different. marks. The entry in the log stated, that on Friday, June 11th, the wiijd coiiimenced blowing all round the compass, and at length blew a hurricane from tUe S.B.E. The vessel labored very much, aud at length became almost unmanageable, lying Helpless in the trough of the sea. He consulted with the mate and seamen, ami in order to save the ship, a quantity of deck cargo, irrespective of marks, was thrown overboard. The vessel then became manageable, and weathered the storm, which was one of the most fearful he ever experienced The steward of the vessel was called, who stated that Mr Hargreaves, the shipper, agreed with the late master that the fruit should he stowed on the poop. Mr Wilson raised the point that in cases of deck stowage an action must he brought against the captain personally, arid that it could not he done as Captain Williams had not signed the receipt. The Magistrate said he had very little doubt what ought to he the result of the cascither on its merits or in point of law. Hie plaintiff had no case. The receipt only hound the master who signed it, who was personally r sponsih|e, but w]io being nt) long-'i’ master could not now he sued. H was also shown that the goods were thrown overboard to save the ship and that without such a proceeding there was every prohat hility she would have foundered. Judgment was given for the defendant, C’Brieu v. Smith. —A claim for L 5 for preparing a plan of sale for property at Balclutha. The case was undefended. Judgment for the plaintiff by default.