The Nelson Evening Mail WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 1866. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume I, Issue 115, 18 July 1866, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 1866.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

. .In.-.the Magistrates Court this day, the following cases were.heard :— Waxman v. Murdoch, claim £3 155.,f0r clothes supplied for "Mr. "Mullius,'at defendant's request. Mr. Kingdon for defendaut said, Murdoch was merely an agelit inithe matter, aud defendant said he merely chose a suit of clothes for Mullins's soh. He had received no money from lhe father to pay for the clothes. Tlie magistrate.gave judgment for the defendaut. —Firth v.. Flowers, claim £4 17s. ; judgment by couseut.for plaintiff. — Berry v. Fiowers, claim £9 -10s. ; same order. —Balm v. Potter, chum £7 15s. for repairs to a dog cart. Defendant disputed the accouut, ou the ground that he did not give the order to mend tlie dog cart. Mr. Monro, juu., broke the cart.,, and'promised to pay for it if the items were furnished to him. Plaintiff said defendant's man helped him to remove the cart to his shop. He refused to take £6 10s. from Mr. Monro. The magistrate said-he would like to hear some further evidence, and suggested that plaintiff should bring. a fresh action. —De Cnrle v. John Smith, claim £2 Bs. ; judgment for plaintiff. TATE V. CHARLES HARLEY. This was au action for damages caused by a cart driven by a sou of defendant's, and which inflicted certain injuries on the plaintiff. The accident occurred on the 18th June, between the Saltwater Bridge and the Post Office. Plaintiff could not swear that defendant's son was driving, but he believed the cart belonged to Mr. Harley. Plaintiff was close to the railway, ho was not cautioned and the cart driven at a rapid trot, passed over his-left foot. He lost 18 days work, and paid the doctor £l "7s. 6d. .No bones were broken. He claimed 10s. per day. for loss of time. * Henry Bailey witnessed the accident, but could not say who was driviug. The driver, I whoever, he was, was careless. Plaintiff was close to.the rails, and if witness had not pulled him away, the cart would have knocked him down. No caution was given. The road is about nine yards wide there. Hugh Cottier said on the day of the accident, Mr. T. Harley came to liis houso expressed sorrow for tbe accident, and said he could not help it, as he was not driving at the time. For the defence, Mr. T. Harley was called. He said, on the day in question, he was sitting in a cart driven by Mr. Chesterman. He saw the plaintiff standing three or four yards from the rails, nearly iu the middle of the road. Another cart was coming from the port at the time, in. an opposite direction and passed the cart in which witness was, just as they came to plaintiff and his party. Witness was lighting his pipe atthe time. The driver called out to plaintiff to get out of the way. The plaintiff was looking behind him, and was pulle'd out of the road. Witness did not think the cart passed over plaintiff's foot, as he did not limp, show any sigus of distress, ox call out at all. On seeing plaintiff's foot, witness did not think it was hurt at all, and heard no more of the matter till the 4th July. Efe was not in defendant's employ. He was 2L years of age. Alfred Chesterman, the driver of the cart, corroborated the statement of the last witness. He could not say where he was sitting. The men were nearly in the middle of the road. He did uot think the cart passed over the plaintiff's foot. He only took the reins while Mr. Harley lighted his pipe. Captain Henry Eure said, the plaintiffwas looking back aud walking forwards from three to four yards from tho tramway, at the time of the -accident. Another cart was passing. "Witness and Mr. Harley cried out to the plaintiff. The horse was going a little, off a walk. He did not see the cart run over the plaintiff, who did uot appear to be injured at all. Dr. Squires proved that the plaintiff had sustained injuries to the foot by the wheel of a cart passing over ifc. The injury wassuch as would cause a man to lay up-18 days. It

; didnbt necessarily follow? that a-mair iwouid limp when a; cart wheel passed; over- his foot. '7 .Mi*. Kingdon- for defendant, contended there was no -proof that the plaintiff had been , run. oyer. .._.-.,.,... The "Magistrate thought differently, and gave judgment fo.- the plaintiff ; for the amount claimed. Mr. H. Pitt, appeared for. the plaintiff. .