POLICE COURT, QUEENSTOWN.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume II, Issue 68, 23 December 1863, Page 4

POLICE COURT, QUEENSTOWN.

December 18th, 1863. (Before Richmond Beetham, Esq., R.M)

Angus v. Welsh.—The defendant was charged upon information, with having on the 4th December last, used abusive and threatening language, calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Mr Campbe ll appeared for the d fence". The relative size of the plaintiff to the defendant appeared lo excite some surprise. John Angus, storekeeper, sworn, snid that th 9 defendant collected a crowd outside his store, called him a blackguard, swindler, &c., and threatened that the next time he should meet him on the Shotover he would not come away in the same state he went. He also used the same language in the shop of Mr Campbell, the watchmaker. He did not want to have anything doue to the defendant, only that he should be obliged to keep a civil tongue in his head. By Mr Ca npbell—The language was used on the same occasion as when 1 summoned him for striking Mrs Angus. Did not include this charge upon that occasion. Did not state these facts to the magistrate at the time. Cannot swear positively about that: might have done so. Mr Beetham—Have you any witnesses ? Mr Angus—Mr Campbell, the watchmaker, can tell what Welsh said in his shop. Mr Beetham—That is no evidence on this information. Mr Angus—lf you will adjourn the case I will send down for the storeman. Mr Beetham—l cannot allow the time of the Court to be wasted in this manner: you ought to be provided with your witnesses. Mr Angus—l do not know much of law, and did not like to employ a solicitor in a case like this. Mr Campbell—l submit the defendant has already been adjudged upon this offence, and I consider that Mr Angus is acting vindictively in this matter. The summons is taken out ten days after the alleged offence is committed, and is only served on the 14th inst. Mr Angus has been up the Shotover during this period,and returned unmolested. Mr Beetham to plaintiff—Did this language happen before or after the last case was decided? Mr Angus—Before ; but he threatened to do for me when I went to the Shotover. It was about five minutes after he struck Mrs Angus. Mr Beetham—l am astonished you should issue such a summons: it is a part of a previous case, upon which a decision has already been given. Case dismissed, with costs. Roberts v. Dohey.—An information for assault and threatening language. Settled out of Court. Rees v. Driver.—l mporant Commercial Case.—This case, upon a criminal information for illegally detaining goods, had been previously partly heard. Mr Campbell for the plaintiff; Mr Shepherd advised the defendant. Mr Campbell said that it had become a practice at Kingston to have cart hunts after goods, for the sake of the Lake freight. The goods in question were loaded by Messrs Pickford and Co in Dunedin, and had to be delivered through their agent, Mr R 'es, of Kingston and Queenslown, to the Messrs liullen,at Queenstown. The defendant, in becoming pos>essedof these goods, had acted illegally, and so had the carter as the servant of Pickford unci Co, in giving them up. The gooes should have gone only through Mr Rees, the agent's hands at Kingston, and it was well known that Mr Rees was the agent for Picklord and Co. lie would state that in accordance

With the previous decision, the goods had been delivered up by the defendants upon the paympnt of the cartage paid to the carrier at Kingston ; but the question was tried, not for the few shillings of ireight in question, but for the principle involved, viz: Can goods be taken possession of by any other parties than those to whom they were consigned, or the authorised agents of the consignees ? Captain Budd deposed that he was managing Mr Kees' business at Queenstown. Mr Rees is the agent for Pickford and Co, at Queenstown and Kingston. The agreement is that Mr Kees ia to pay cartage at Kingston, receive, forward and convey the ijords up the Lake to Queenstown. Mr Philip Allen is the agent at Kingston. We are responsible, under the agreement, for the aafe delivery of the goods. First heard of these guods having been taken possession of by Capt. I)river from Messrs Bullen, who told me refused to acknowledge any such agency, i'old Capt. Driver that, as agent for Pickford and Co, 1 wuuld pay the amount he htid paid for cartage, bat no freight. By the waybill I consider the goods should pass through our hands. It is aimilar to all the others, and Pickford and Co's name is upon it. Mr Campbell—That is our case. The defendant handed in a written defence, together with "Cbitty on the Law of Carriers." It statid—

44 Your Worship—My defence is, that I was not in illegal possession of the goods, as stated by the complainant, they having come into my possession under the following circumstances 44 The goods were forwarded from Invercargill to Queenstown, via St John's, bv a carrier who, upon his arrival at St John's, without the solicitation of any one on my behalf, placed them on board my vessel, the Victoria, with instructions to deliver them to the Messrs. Bullen, at Queenstown, upon receiving his freight and my charges. 44 1 accordingly conveyed them to Queenstown and upon proffering delivery to the Messrs Bullen,. they refused to receive them, stating that Mr Rees was their authorised agent, and that they would not acknowledge me. They further stated that the way bill given to the carrier by Messrs Pickford and Co disclosed the fact that Mr Rees was their auent.

4, '1 further add that lam not here to-day to defend the act of the carrier, or whether he committed a hreatch of contract, but simply whether I had illegal of the goods, aud to that point I shall confine my evidence. " The following are the chief heads of my defence, and I strongly urge them for the consideration of this Court. 44 1. That the carrier was .the bailee of the goods for the consignors or consignees, the Messrs Bullen, and therefore solely responsible to them fur delivery according to his contract. 41 2. That the goods never belonged for one second to, or became vested in Mr Rees, the complainant, as tht y were never his property either directly or constructively, and to support a criminal information it is imperative to prove the resting the goods in the cotnplaii ant. 41 3. That this complaint should have beeu brought in the name of the Messrs Bullen, and not in the name of a receiving agent who did not receive.

" 4. That the carrier was the proper party to be sued supposing that the goods were not delivered according to instructions and contract. " 5. That there is no priority of contract between myself and the complainant, or between the carrier (for whom I am agent) and the complainant. *'6. That this Court has no jurisdiction, as the goods are above the value of £2O, and the evidence proves that they did not come into my possession in such a manner as to come within the criminal laws in force in this colony. u 7. 'that a civil action should be brought in the Supreme Court of New Zealand, that bein<f the only court with jurisdiction,and then it would have to be in the name of the Messrs Bullen or the consignor, whoever he may be. h B. Lien for carriage of goods to St John's, and from St John's to Queenstown.

44 1 ref« r you to page 124, ' Chitty on the Law of Carriers.

The authorities quoted were [" Chitty on the Law of Carriage of Goods bv land and navigation :"—Who is to sue the carrier ? 11 is a general rule of law that an action must be brought by the person in whom the legal interest is invested, for he is the pers«n who has sustained the loss, and the proper person to cite for compensation.] Mr Howorth, one of the owners of the " Victoria" steamer, sworn—l was ill in bed when the goodp in question arrived at Kingston. The carter called upon me and asked me if I was Bullen's Agent: I said, no. He remarked he had been looking out half a day for the agent, to deliver him the goods. I sent him to another party, who had been the last agent of Mr Bullen. The carttr returned, and said he was no longer agent. I again sent him away to look over the town for the proper agent. He returned in two hours, stating he had been unsuccessful in his search. I then wrote him in bed a cheque for his cartage and forwarded the goods by the u Victoria," to Queenstown.

By Mr Campbell—Pick ford's agent has left Kingston some time ago. Did not know Mr Rees was Pickford and Co's agent until I heard Capt. Budd state so in the box just now : can swear I never knew it before: no, it is not my interest to know who is the agent: I have had contracts to carry up goods from Dunedin for the Messrs Bullen, ana they hrve paid me over £3OO. It is within the last twelve months: it may be about fix months ago: I cannot tell the exact time ■without consulting my books: Mr Bullen recognised my claim fur freight on these goods: he offered to pay 31 per ton dead weight, for freight, the same as he was paying Mr Rees under contract ; I charged him freight for measurement, od BHld/Mtftoajptthe oSet.

Captain Driver, sworn, said that Mr Bullen told him he should not pay him any more freight than w hat Mr Kees was charging him : he said this when I gave him the way-bill. Stored the goods upon being refused payment. By Mr Campbell—lt was some time afterwards when Mr Bullen told me he would not recognise my claim : he did not do so when I first handed him the way-bill: was not aware for a certainty that Mr Kees was agent for Pickford and Co: heard something of it by hearsay: ,1 am not aware whether Pickford and Co is written upon Mr Kees' store here : will swear positively to this: it may be, but I don't know it: the waybill is not addressed to Pickford and Co; it is to Messrs Bullen: the first intimation I received that Mr Rees was the agent was from Mr Bullen. Mr Campbell—l beg to call your attention to the fact that Howorth is prompting the witness. Mr Beetham—Stand away, sir, from the witness box: what right have you to prompt the witness? You must know that you are doing wrong. The other answers obtained from the witness were only a recapitulation of previous evidence. Mr Campbell, in reply, submitted that the defendants knew perfec'ly well that Mr Rees was the i.gent of Messrs Pickford and Co, and that they had indulged in the cart-hunting pursuit for their own benefit, as regards the Luke freightage. No one was safe under such a system, and he considered the defence was a most technical and shifty one. His client desired to try the question involved equitably, but they had been met by objections most frivolous. As an example of the responsibility Mr Kees incurred, as the representative of Pickford and Co, he would state that Mr Rees had paid the sum of 691 for damage done to goods when on their transit over the Lake. If Pickford and Co agreed to carry out contracts how could they be made answerable for damage if other parties stepped in and received the goods from the carrier at Kingston P They might be damaged on the road, and Mr Rees' agent was authorised to examine the goods: by his actions they were bound, but not by those of another party without authority from any of the parties concerned. He held that the had been illegally transferred to the defendants, and that legally, they had never passed out of the possession of Pickford and Co.

Mr Beetham—l consider the goods were in the possession of the carrier as the servant of Pickford and Co : that the way-bill bore the name of Pickford and Co upon it: the goods are addressed by it to Messrs Bullen, but Howortb must have known he was neither Pickford and Co's agent, nor the authorised agent of Mr Bullen. The goods, in my opinion, have never legally passed out of the possession of Pickford and Co, and I shall give a verdict, therefore, for the plaintiff, with oosts.