MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10219, 13 December 1893, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHBISTCHUECH. Tuasday, Dec, 12, (Before J. P. Jameson, Esq., and the Hon W. C. Walker.) Hobbes at Large.— William Green, for . allowing two horses to wander in Carlyle street, Sydenham, was fined 10s, and costs. —Oliver Peacock, for allowing » horse to wander in Madras street, Sydenham, was fined 5s and coats.—William Eeaby, for whom Mr Plesher appeared, was fined 5s and costs for allowing a horse to wander in Bing street, Windsor. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M.) Civiii Cases.—Judgment by default with coats was given for plaintiffs in the cases of the Press Company, Limited, v. W. Freeman, claim .£ll 17s fid, and J. Barritt v. D. Crawford, £7 8s 6d. Mr Donnelly for plaintiff. The case of O. W. ‘ Comer and others v. G. W. Bussell, claim £o, was adjourned till Dec. 19, and P. Mitchell v. J. M. Nixon, &1 la. till Deo. 21. EANGIOEA. Tuesday, Dec. 12. (Before H. W. Bishop, Esq., E.M., and J.L. Wilson, E. E. Good and A. Toll, Esqs.) Slaughterhouse License. —A slaughter* house license was granted to John M’Holmj Pemside. Civil Cases.— ln the case of A. P, Tutton v. W. P. Joynt, the Resident Magistrate gave judgment on the point raised by Mr Cathro for the defendant. Mf Cathro had contended that before a master could sue his servant for damage sustained through negligence the master must him* self have been sued by the third party concerned. The Resident Magistrate said that Mr Cathro had been led to this con' elusion through the phraseology in the text-book from which ho quoted being misleading. He (Mr Bishop) had searched the law on the matter, going back mere than a hundred years, and he had discovered nothing. to bear out the construction which might naturally be placed upon the paragraph in the text* ' book quoted by Mr Cathro.' The laW simply laid it down that in an action by a master against his servant to recover damage sustained through negligence or breach of duty, the fact of damages being recovered from the master at the suit Ol ft third party was evidence as to the question of damage sustained. Under these cln cumstancea the point must be disallowed, and as negligence of duty on the part of defendant was proved with reference to the sale of one article, whereby plaintiff had sustained a loss of 17s fid, judgment would be for that amount, with 19s costs. Mr Helmore appeared for plaintiff.—A. Creara v. J. Brown, claim JB3 ss, for damage to fence. Case allowed to stand over for a week.