RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 7, 9 January 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before J. Poynter, Esq., R.M.] * This Day. Benson v. Newton. Claim for the value of 601bs. of plums, at Is. per lb. ; 201bs. of pears and other fruit. Plaintiff said the day before Christmas Day he had a truck load of fruit in Trafalgar-street, at the corner of the hotel. Defendant's. horse bolted and upset the truck containing the fruit, which was all destroyed. Mr. Newton offered him 15s. as compensation,

■which he thought too small a sum to take. He knew the fruit was the weight specified from the cases. To Mr. Pitt : I was on the Trafalgarstreet side of the hotel. Defendant was not with the horse. I first saw it about •60 yards from my trap, when some cabmen were trying to stop it. I had to move out of the way to escape being hurt. The fruit was upset in the street, and being ripe, was destroyed by the people who rushed to the spot. The street was dusty, the fruit was spoiled, and I could make no use of it. I bought the fruit of Mr. Levien, as a job lot, and spent a day in picking it. The Magistrate : What proof have you that the cases contained the quantity of fruit you sue for ? You seem to have been retailing diarrhoea (laughter). Plaintiff: My boy will prove the quantity of fruit. Andrew Fife : I know there were 6Olbs of plums, by the cases. There were 2Olbs of pears in a case. We did not pick them up, because the crowd crushed them all. We could not have saved any of it. Mr. Pitt held that defendant was not liable. The horse had been frightened ■and had it been let alone would have gone home quietly. If plaintiff had tried to save the fruit he might have done so. The only responsible parties were those who frightened the horse. Defendant had done all that was required of him in offering the 15s. Pis Worship considered that the defendant was responsible, although the amount had been exaggerated, The justice of the case would be met by a judgment for £1. It was a pity the plaintiff did not take the 15s. offered him. Brook v. Kops.— Claim, £15 10s. 3d., for goods shipped to order. An order was given for payment of the amount less £3, which was disputed by defendant in a letter. To this plaintiff consented rather than postpone the case. Touet v. Edmonsen. — £2 os. Judgment for plaintiff, for amount. 1 month's time allowed for payment.