Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(BeforeE. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Neill and Co., Limited v. the Shaw, Savill and Albion Company, Limited.— His Worship gave judgment herein as follows ;

This is an action to recover damages for short delivery of two cases of tobacco, but the real dispute is whether a portion of the contents of each case has been abstracted while in the defendants’ custody as carriers. The evidence sbowsthe casesarenotfull, areshortof the weight marked on each case, and that the cases have evidently been opened and refastened. I think there are reasonable grounds for believing that the tobacco has been pilfered, and the evidence rebuts the probability of that having been done since the cases left the Coptic. It has been admitted, bat with a qualification, that the defendant company carried the goods from London to Dunedin under the through bill of lading from New York; but this admission amounts to this: we admit all the contract shown by the bill of lading that will free us from our common law liability as carriers, but no further. The question then is: is there any evidence that the tobacco was pilfered while in the defendant company’s custody ? and clearly there is none unless it is bound by the 1 'good order and condition ” clause of the through bill of lading. The words are these: "Received in apparent good order and condition ” ‘‘in the port of New York,” “ to be delivered in like good order and well-conditioned at the port of London, and to be thence transhipped at ship’s expense and shipper’s risk to the port of Port Chalmers, Dunedin,” subject to the bills of lading of connecting carriers. In another part of the bill of lading it is provided that, in forwarding the goods from London, the National Steamship Company shall be regarded as acting as the shipper’s agents. I cannot see how the defendant company is in fuy way bound by the admission of the National Com pany ; nor is it to be presumed it the company received the goods in good order that it delivered them to the defendant company in a like state, To sheet a case homo to the defendant company it must bo proved that the pilfering took place while the tobacco was in its custody, and this has not been done. Judgment for defendants.

Mackerras and Hazlett v. Ah Wye (Conroy’s Gully).—Claim, L 35, on a promissory note,—Judgment by default. Kearns, Son, and Heatley v. Checkley and Co. (Christchurch).—Claim, L 24 5s 2d, goods sold. Mr Gallaway for plaintiffs.— Judgment for L 24 2a 2d and costs, Annie Maria Cross v. George Bertinshaw. —Claim, LI 7s 4d, for work done in stitching and fitting hats, Mr Sim appeared for plaintiff; Mr Calvert for defendant.—After hearing evidence His Worship disallowed the set-off by defendant on account of alleged damage to material, and gave judgment for LI and costs (L2 2s 6a). CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs J. Elmer, B, Chisholm, and A, Burt, J.P.s.) Window-breaking. —Frederick Hill was charged with breaking one pane of glass, valued at 10s, tho property of J. W. Faulkner.—Accused pleaded guilty, and, the complainant intimating that the matter had been settled out of Court, the case was accordingly withdrawn, tho police offering no objection. Petty Larceny. —Annie Green and Jessie Green, two girls, were charged with stealing a quantity of coal valued at Is, the property of John Green. Mr Thornton defended, and said his clients pleaded guilty. It had been a custom for persons to go to the Velichet Bay Railway Station and gather coal. As a large amount of coal had been taken away, the coal proprietors had decided to stop the practice, and only wished to warn the accused.—Sergeant O’Neill said that tho information was laid by the police on account of the coalowners complaining of tho large amount of coal that was being missed. The accused were found gathering coal at five o’clock in the morning, and the police thought that the parents know something about it. Accused had been charged in the Court before with stealing stamps, and on that occasion had been cautioned by the Justices. —Mr Burt: Are these girls employed anywhere? —Mr Thornton: The mother takes in sewing and the girls go out to work,—Mr Chisholm : Where are they employed ?—Mr Thornton(: In some factory, your Worship, Mr Elmer ; What circumstances are the family in ?—Mr Thornton said that the family were not in very good circumstances. Mr Elmer said that the Bench were disinclined to sentence such young girls to gaol, but as they had been before the Court before it was a serious matter.—Tho arresting constable was called to prove that accused were in the truck filling a bag with coal.—Mr Thornton said that if the Bench had decided not to dismiss the case perhaps a small fine would meet the case. That could be inflicted under section 199 of the Justices of tho Peace Act.—Mr Elmer said the Bench had decided to convict accused, and would order them to come up for sentence when called on. A fine would hardly meet the case, as it was a serious matter. If they behaved themselves they would not be interfered with, but if they misbehaved they would be severely dealt with. Larceny. Alfred Hendrickson was charged with stealing on October 1 one gold watch and chain, valued at L 6 10s, the property of Even Christenson.—Chiefdetective Henderson said that complainant and accused were employed on a steamer, and slept in the forecastle. Accused was paid off on October 1, and shortly afterwards complainant missed his watch. When accused was arrested he was wearing the watch, and seemed greatly surprised at being arrested. Even Christenson, a seaman, said that he was employed on the Invercargill. On the Ist of the month they were at Port Chalmers. Accused was employed on tho vessel, witness taking his place on October 1. Witness had a watch in his possession on that date, and in the afternoon hung watch, chain, etc., on a nail just above his bunk. In the evening, and during the voyage to Invercargill, witness missed his watch. Accused had been about the boat before she left Port Chalmers. When the Invercargill arrived at Port Chalmers, witness informed tho police, He had not seen his watch since it had been taken from tho steamer, and the watch produced was his property. Witness had known accused by sight for six or seven months, but had never spoken to him. To the Bench: Accused was drunk on tho date mentioned, but witness could not toll whether ho was aware of what ho was doing —Chief-detective Henderson said that he could not have been drunk five days after, yet ho retained the watch,—Detective M'Grath said he saw accused in Stuart street on Saturday evening and informed him of tho loss of Christenson’s watch, and that he (accused) was suspected of stealing it. Accused said he had the watch in his possession. He said he had taken it at Port Chalmers, but could

hot rcmembel' how he took it. He then handed watch, chain, and pendant to witness. Accused had a pawn ticket In his Eossossion for another watch, which had ecu pledged on September 14. —Chicfdeteotive Henderson said that accused was not known to the police. When challenged he admitted having the watch in his possession, but persons usually did that when planed in a similar position.—Accused now said that he went to Port Chalmers on October 1. He was drunk, and did not remember taking the watch. On the clay after the boat sailed he found that he had complainant’s watch in his possession, and fully intended to give it back to the owner. He knew the watch belonged to complainant by the greenstone pendant and small-linked chain, and told two persons that he had taken Christenson’s watch, but could not tell how he had got possession of it. —Accused was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court. By-law Cases. —For allowing cows, etc., to wander Thomas Short was fined 2s 6d without costs, David Findlay (two charges) Is each without costs, Bernard Madden (three previous convictions) 7s fid without costs, and Joseph Brown (one previous conviction) 5s without costs.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18891009.2.9

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 8033, 9 October 1889

Word Count
1,380

THE COURTS-TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 8033, 9 October 1889

Working