MAGISTRATE'S COtJItI T , (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., S.M.) Judgment was given (for plaintiffs with «following undefended cases Otago Daily Tithes’ Company v. James Logan, jun. (of Invercargill), claim £3 6s 6d for due; Ceylon and Indian Tea Company, Limited (for whom Mr Solomon appeared) v, W. Wright (of Hampden), claim £1 12a for . tea supplied (costs 6s); same v. J. Woodhead (of Temuka), claim 12s (costs 8s); same v, B. Williams (of Temuka), claim £2 (costs 11s); same v. W. Ure (of Kurow), claim 16s 4d (costa 6s); same v. John Rowe (Geraldine), claim 15s (coats 6s); same v. M. O’Brien (Ngapara), claim £1 (costs Oa); same v. William Thomas (of Temuka), claim 10s (coats 6a); same v. Robert Simpson (of Ashburton), claim £1 (costa 6a); same v. laaac Baker (of Livingstone), claim £1 11a 6d (costs 16a); same v. Joseph Clear (of Waimate), claim £2 (costs 11s); same v. John Best (of Waimate), claim 16a (costs 6a); same v. Alma Edgeler (of Temuka), claim £l 4s (costs 6a); same v. John Richmond (of Kurow), claim £1 (coats 12a); same v. A. W. Surridge (of Temuka), claim 17a (costs 6a); same v. George Meredith (of Geraldine), claim 10a (costs 6a). Kaitangata Railway and Coal Company v. James Fox.—Claim, £lB9 15a lOd, for coal supplied, and couutci-claim, in which defendant sued for £65 18a 9d, amount paid by him for coal alleged to have been short delivered. Mr Holmes and Mr Fraser appeared for the plaintiff company, and Mr Sirn for the defendant.—ln this previouslyheard case His Worship gave judgmeut-as follows :
The claim in this ca°c is not‘disputed, and judgment will be for the plaintiff company bv consent for £lB9 iss lOd, with costs of court (30s). The defendant counter-claims for £65 18s 9d, as the amount paid by him to the plaintiff for coal charged for but not delivered to him. The evidence in support of this counter-claim is not satisfactory. Tho_ defendant has made up statements from his accounts and books of the quantity of coal charged for by the company from the Ist April, 1895, and of the quantity of Kaitangata coal which his books show has been sold by him from that date, and the balance between these quantities, about eighty-eight tons, he says, represents short weight in the coal invoiced to him by the company. The defendant also gave evidence of two truck loads that he received and made a special duty to weigh. On May 14, 1897, truck No. 100 was invoiced to him as containing 4 tons Bcwt. He says he bagged all the coal, put it into four drays, and weighed it in Forsyth’s railway dray weighbridge, with the result that he found the weight to be 3icwt short. On the 26th June, 1897, truck No. 463 was invoiced to him as containing 6 tons llcwt. Hesays part was weighed on that day and the remainder onthefollowingMoaday —that is, on the second day after he received delivery, with a result showing a deficiency of 2cwt 3qr. The defendant says says a dozen or two more trucks were weighed this year than formerly, that he thought one or two turned out overweight, and the others averaged 3cwt short. There has been considerable correspondence between the parties this year, the defendant complaining of short weight, while Mr Watson, for the plaintiff company, always declined to acknowledge the charge, and the defendant, month by month, paid for the previous month’s supplies as charged. I have checked the weights taken when the trucks left Kaitangata with the weights charged, and I find that until recently, when, in consequence of defendant’s complaints, the company reweighed the coal at the railway truck weighbridge, and charged those weights, that the company has allowed about 20 tons more than they have charged for. The evidence of the officers of the Railway Department goes to show that the railway truck bridge is a good one of its kind, although on one occasion it was found to weigh 211b too heavy, which was at once corrected, and other tests have given good results. The Kaitangata coal trucks were frequently weighed on the bridge, and invariably showed a little in favor of the buyer, corresponding somewhat with the evidence that the company allow a draft of a full cwt and the odd quarters to the buyer on each truck. It is evident from the evidence of teats made at different weighbridges and discrepancies found to exist that these machines require skill and care m their management, and it seems that is particularly the case with dray weighbridges. Dealing with truck No 100, in which there was a difference of 3.(cwt between the Kaitangata weight and the dray weighbridge, I don’t see any sufficient reason why I should conclude that the Kaitangata weight was an overcharge. An intentional overcharge is out of the question, and there is more room for error in weighing four dray loads than one truck load and there is a question of waste and loss in cleaning up and bagging. I think, too, that the fact that defendant had full knowledge of the weight of that truck of coal at the time he paid for it is in plaintiff’s favor. The same remarks apply to truck No. 468, delivered on Saturday, 26th June, and there is also the uncertainty as to whether the coal was pillaged from the partly emptied truck between Saturday and Monday. As to the evidence founded upon the difference between the quantity charged for and the sales of ooal, I repeat that it is very unsatisfactory to my mind, and not conclusive that defendant received that much short weight, There is evidence that defendant s yardman gmerally screened the coal in the yard, that the dross was not weighed, waste was left in the trucks, ami the yardman gave away coal to hoys in return for assistance they gave him at his work. The defendant deals with all this ns short weight, and generally seems to claim indemnity from the plaintiff company for all errors in negligeuce on the part of his employes in dealing with Kaitangata ooal and possible loss by pillage. I am not satisfied that the defendant has not received full weight. Judgment for plaintiff company in counter-claim, with costs (£1 12s 9J). '
CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs C. S; Reeves and J. Waldic, J.P.s.) Alleged Breach of the t eace. William Reeve*, Albert Bowles, and William Kirk were charged with committing a breach of the peace in Princes street on the Sth insb. Mr Hanlon defended. Sergeant O’Neill stated that at a few minutes before nine o’clock on Tuesday evening a man named Moore and his mate were in the Gladstone Hotel, where they were joined by the defendant Kirk. They had some conversation there, and then left for the Gridiron Hotel, and on going through the Arcade they were followed by the other defendants. An argument took place at the Gridiron Hotel between Kirk and Moore, and after a while the former invited Moore and his mate outside. The moment the last-named men left the hotel the defendants struck them with their fists and knocked them down. The police were sent for, and on their approach the defendants ran away and jumped on to a tramcar. The defendants were a little excited from drink, and while on the tramcar they were heard to talk about the way they had knocked the other men about.—Evidence was given by Frank Moore and James Murray (two gold miners from Preservation Inlet) and James Kennedy.—Sergeant O’Neill was about to call another witness when Mr Reeves said ; The Bench.are satisfied there ia nothing in" this case.—Sergeant O’Neill: We don’t complain of the assault. It is the breach of peace in a public place.—Mr Reeves : You should try them all. The case is dismissed.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 10440, 8 October 1897