BESIDEST MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1361, 27 March 1868, Page 3

BESIDEST MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday. (Before Thomas Beckliam, Esq., R.M.) The Next Sittings or District Court.—Hia "Worship said he had much pleasure 111 complying with the requisition he had received from the profession in reference to the next sitting of the District Court. In compliance with the request he would fix the next sitting of the District Court for Monday, tha 20th, in the Old Supreme Court, Eden-street, instead of the previous "Wednesday, as previously appointed. The Civil Sitiikgs.—Mr. Brookfisld said, before the regular business of the Court was commenced he would ask whether the civil business could not in future be carried on in the same building as had been sot apart for tho sittings of the District Court. His Worship said, if the profession desired it, he thought tho change would be for the better. It would be a great convenience to have tha whole of the civil business transacted at tho other Court, so that on the Thursdays in each week, Justices might be requested to dispose of the Police cases, so that the two Courts could sit concurrently. Very often the noise of passing carts and tho bad acoustic properties of the building rendered it impossible for the Court to hear the statements of the counsel or of witnesses. In compliance with the desire of the profession, after the opening of the other Court in Eden Crescent, as a District Court, the civil business would be transacted there also.

Quick v, £20.—This -was a claim for tho valuo of a horse hired by defendant, and alleged to have been bo over-ridden by him as to cause its death. The defence was, that the animal's death had been caused by plaintiff having administered improper remedies for gripes. The evidence had been heard at the previous Co art day.— His Worship gavo judgment as follows:—This is a claim for damages, -which is to have arisen in this way. The plaintiff is said to have lent a horse to the defendant to perform a certain journey within a given time, and it is alleged on behalf of the plaintiff, that he has sustained damage to the amount of #20, in consequence of the horse not having been carefully and reasonably used by the defendant. Now it seems from the testimony that this horse was hired at 10 30 o'clock to proceed to Mangarei, and to return by 3 o'clock. It would seem that to Mangarei is a distance of between probably 10 or 11 miles, but as the horse proceeded lour or five miles further, that is 15 miles, that would make the journey 30 miles. The evidence goes to ahow that when the horse left the stable in Auckland its health was good, and it was capable of performing •the journey if it had been properly used. But on the other side it is alleged that the horse was properly used, and that inasmuch as it was hired to perform the journey within a given time, it was bound to do it. The evidence is ample to Bhow that if the horse had been properly used, it could have performed the journey in the given time, " would be something like 6 miles an hour, which would be by no means too much for a horse. We are told that it was returned at 3 o'clock, and that before the saddle could be taken off the horse fell down, and in an hour or two afterwards he died. We are also told that the horse was dripping with blood from the free use of the spur. I think the whole of the evidence «oes to show that this horse was not properly used, and the only question for the Court is what amount of damage is to be awarded. After looking carefully at the evidence, as to the value of the horse, the I Court is of opinion that judgment must pass for plaintiff for the sum of £11.

Hooper v. Htxtbb.—This case had also been heard at the previous sitting of the Court, the question in dispute being whether certain tanks alleged to hire been taken away by defendant were fixtures belocging to a house bought by plaintiff.—His Worship said the Court was of opinion that plaintiff had not made out hia case as against defendant, bo that a nonsuit must be recorded.

Judgments pob Plaintiffs. —R. Jas. Feltus v. Jas. De Hirseli, £10 4s; Mr Bichie appeared for plaintiff; 8. and J. K. Vaile v. Geo. A. Calvert, £6 7s 3d ; Mr. Hesketh for plaintiff; Jas Russell v. J. T.\ Mangav, £13 10s, money lent. Nonsuit.—W. Parker v. R. Sandall, £4 10s. Coni'Essud—R. Hale v. J. Dancy, £4 7s 9d; Tru* ■ lees 0. Marks v. A. Bruce, 17s Cd. J. Gasdner v. Glenn v.—Claim £20, for trespass and damages.—Mr. Hesketh and Mr. Jas. Russell forplaintiff; Mr. J. B. Russell and Mr. Sheehan for defendant.—Mr. ITesketh, at the opening of the crse, abandoned the claim for trespass, and vested his case upon the claim for the value of certain trees.—The claim was for certain birch trees at Is. each said to have been wrongfully carted away, and used by defendant, who was the lessee of certain premise! under plaintiff. A considerable amount of evidence having been adduced, and forensic eloquence displayed, His Worship ruled a nonsuit mustberecorded,theevidence having failed to disclose that the alleged ground of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court. Watte and Batgeb v. t£. Ceaig.—Claim £5 9a. 6d.—Mr. Ca?h for plaintiff, Mr. Weston for defendant.—ln this case the evidence rested upon the validity of a deed, and it was agreed that the document should remain in Court for his Worship's decision as to its validity.

JonK Poweb v. Gbo. G-allagkeb.—Claim £8 lis. 3d, wages snd wrongful dismissal. —Mr. Beveridgefor plaintiff.—Plaintiff's wife deposed that she had been engaged by defendant a3 cook in the officers' mesa of the 18th Hegiment. Defendant dismissed her without notice, and refused to pay her wages, saying he had no money to give her. Witness's husband deposed that the original agreement made in his presence was tHo-fc hio vrifft waa to a month's notice.—Defendant in defence deposed, that the engagement was merely temporary pending the recovery of another cook. "Witness also produced written instructions from the officers of the mess, by which it appeared that he had no power to engage a cook. Crossexamined : Defendant said he had not showed her the written instructions on engaging the woman. —The mess-sergeant of the 18th deposed that defendant was the mesman to the officers. Witness also deposed that the woman had been aware that the engagement was only temporary, and had requested him to use his influence in having it made temporary. —Hia Worship was of opinion that the defendant had incurred responsibility, and gave judgment for £2 16a. 3d deducting claim for wrongful dismissal. James Kilgour v. A. Dobkwell.—Claim £10 15s. Mr. Hesketh for plaintiff; Mr. MacC'ormick for the defendant. This was a claim by the lessee of the Newmarket Slaughterhouse for fees under the Licensed Slaughterhouse Act. — John Mullahny deposed that Mr. Xilgour was the lessee of the Slaughterhouse, and that was hia (witness's) duty to receive the fees, defendant was indebted in the amount claimed.—The defence was that payment had already been paid to Mullally as plaintiff's agent.—His Worship after hearing the evidence, reserved judgment. Mull ah ay v. Hates.—Mr. Hesketh made an application for an order for payment out of Couit of £9, paid in under protest by plaintiff.—His Worship said notice would be given that the money would be handed over, unless the action be proceeded with. Adjourned Cases.—Shepherd v. Neil Malcolm* next Court day; Jacks an and JBusaell v. D. Carey* £20, ditto. The Court rose at 2 45 p.m.