RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1225, 21 April 1864, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

CHIIISTCHURCH.—Wednesday, April 20. (Before J. Hall, C. C. Bowen, and 11. Greaves, Esqrs., J.Ps.)

T. Garlick and R. Burgess, two lads, were charged with having placed a piece of iron on the line of the railway, thereby endangering the lives of the passengers. R. Burgess was discharged and his evidence was taken against the other prisoner. His testimony proved that Garlick had laid a piece of iron technically called a " chair" on the rails, fastening it on them. The driver of the 3*lo p.m. train deposed that he saw the obstruction just in time to stop the train. The chair was fortunately not very firmly fixed, and the guard-iron carried it off. The presiding magistrate addressed the prisoner and said that he had been guilty of one of the most heinous acts which could be committed, and one for which in England he would be liable to transportation. As, however, this was the first time that such a deed had been done in the province, and as the lessees did not wish to press for a heavy penalty the Bench would deal leniently with him. But if for the future any similar cases were brought under the cognizance of the Court, they would be punished with the utmost severity. A fine of £2 would be imposed in the present instance, and he thought that the father of the lad would not be doing his duty to the public if he did not give him such a whipping as he would remember for. the rest of his life.

Forgery.—Richard St. Hill was charged with having uttered a forged cheque purporting to be signed by Alfred Osborn ; the value was £6 10«. Evidence in support of the charge having been adduced, the prisoner, who made no defence, was committed for trial.

LYTTELTON.—Tuesday, April 19. (Before Wm. Donald, Esq., R.M.) To-day, the Court was occupied with the hearing of civil cases. The following only offered any point of interest to the public. The first case was'of great importance to consignees :—

Hawkins v. Pryde.—Claim for £15 9s. 4d.—Mr. Cotterill appeared for the defendant. The claim was made by Mr. H. Hawkins, grocer, Lyttelton, under the following circumstances : He was consignee of 40 bags of flour ex Wm. Buchanan, from Melbourne; They were damaged by water, and delivered to him in that state. He claimed damages for the above amount of loss on sale of the said flour. [Plaintiff here produced report of survey held on the flour, signed by Mr. J. D. Macpherson and Mr. Henry Dunsford.] The Surveyors stated in their report that the flour was materially damaged, in their opinion, in consequence of the sheep pen being over the place where the flour was stowed, and the report recommended the sale of the flour on account of whom it might concern. He made the Captain acquainted with the intention to hold the survey at eleven o'clock. At half-past eight o'clock on the morning of the same day, he received the bags at his store from the carter, and saw the bags were damaged, and rendered his account, with the survey attached, to Mr. Louisson, the agent. The original value of the flour was £28 per ton; at the auction it sold for £21 per ton. When he told defendant he said he would recognise the claim. He (plaintiff) informed Capt. Pryde that the damage was about £3 per ton. The bill of lading was also produced, containing the usual terms and exemption clauses. Mr. S. E. Graham gave evidence that he surveyed the flour, and arrived at the conclusion that the flour was damaged from something on board. He formed this opinion from the color and the smell, and his opinion was that it was not done by salt water. Examined by Mr. Cotterill—l should not consider it proper stowage if the urine could reach the bags. It is the ship's duty to call a survey before removing the flour: it protects the ship by showing the stowage ii proper, and the ship is bound to get notice that a survey is to be held. It is usual for the master to be present, or to be represented. We waited at least half-an-hour for him, but he did not appear. Mr. H. Dunsford was called and confirmed the evidence of preceding witnesses. The defendant's solicitor produced a leaf from the log book of the Wm. Buchanan, containing a report of the survey held by Captain Westbrook on the flour on board the barque at the request of Captain Pryde. The report stated that the flour was properly stowed and was damaged. That the slight damage sustained was caused by saltwater from the overstraining of the ship in a gale experienced on the voyage from Melbourne. Mr. Cotterill also contended that the ship was not liable for the damage according to the terms of the bill of lading, and he would call the captain to corroborate Captain Westbrook's survey respecting the storage, and that the damage was caused by saltwater, and not from the sheep at all. Captain Pryde said that the cargo was properly stowed; that on taking out the flour • lie found some of the bags a little discolored, and he at once asked Captain Westbrook, of the schooner Craig Ellachie, to hold a survey. The sheep were not near the cargo at all, and it was impossible for the flour to be damaged with urine from them. He met with a severe gale on his passage from Melbourne, and lost over 15 sheep, and it was possible the vessel might have worked a little, and the sea water got down the hold.

The Resident Magistrate remarked the plaintiff had not made out his case, and considering the evidence of Capt. Pryde, to which some weight should be attached, he must non-suit the plaintiff with the usual costs.

A Curious Case.—Flockton v. Black—Claim £6 4s.—This claim was made for theabove amount by the late purser of the ship Indian Empire, under the following circumstances: —It appeared from the evidence that during the passage out Captain Black, had reason to suspect that a quantity of beer had been sold and the amount not paid over to him; he caused the plaintiff's box to be seized, also another box belonging to a Mr. Pegg; in the purser's box seven sovereigns were found; the captain took the money. This money was the property of the purser,, and was given to Pegg to take care of for him in the channel. The plaiutiff gave Pegg £7 10s to keep for him, but afterwards had 10s returned. The evidence of Mr. Pegg was corroborative as to the above particulars, Capt. Black said he objected to return the money because be did not believe the whole of it belonged to Flockton; he considered Flockton and Pegg were leagued together, and had got up the story to get back the money. He assigned the reason for searching the boxes to be because he had his fears that they would make away with the money, the proceeds of the beer.—The Court gave judgment for the plaintiff for £5 14s, and 15s costs.