Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 691, 29 May 1885, Page 22

Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following civil cases in the Resident Magistrate’s Court last Friday morning:—,F. Greville v. Martin O’Loughlin, £4 ; C. Mclntyre v. J. Mohr, £5 15s 7d ; Zohrab and Co. v. Karaitiana te Tupe, £l2 5s 3d ; R. Elliott v. Charles Ward, £6 : Anne Crowther v. P. L. Sim, £l. At the Resident Magistrate’s Court last Friday, Thomas Pepperell sued Peter O’Malley for £99 14s, wages due and cash lent. Mr Brown, who appeared for the defendant, applied for an adjournment in order to enable his client to get a witness from Sydney. The plaintiff objected to this, aud expressed an opinion that the defendant wanted to go over to Sydney. Mr Wardell granted an adjournment for a fortnight, allowing Pepperell £1 to defray his expenses. There was no criminal business. The only civil case heard at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday, was one in which Thomas Broderick sued the Harbor Board for £2O, the value of a box placed on the wharf by the plaintiff on the Bth May inst. Mr Jellicoe appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Skerrett for the defence. The evidence for the plaintiff went to show that the box in question, containing a Singer sewing machine, blankets, and other personal effects, was left on the wharf by Broderick, and subsequently missed. He had originally claimed £l2 from the Board, but was not at that time aware of the exact number of articles in it. For the defence it was argued that the box had not been “tallied” at the shed and had not been properly marked ; so that the Board, its by-laws having been infringed, was not liable. Mr Wardell reserved his decision until Tuesday. William Stuart was charged at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday with having assaulted a man, name unknown, in Willisstreet. He was fined 20s, in default seven days’ imprisonment, on this charge, and was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment for using obscene language. Henry Minchin, a seaman on the Lyttelton, pleaded guilty to a charge of desertion, and was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment. Mr Wardell, R.M., occupied the bench. The Nelson Colonist says that last week at the Resident Magistrate’s Court a plaintiff was nonsuited in an action, which had been brought under an Act which had been, repealed. If the party had taken legal advice, which would probably have cost 6s.jßd, she would have saved an expenditure close on £3. After waiting half an hour for a J. P., the sitting of the Resident Magistrate’s Court commenced at 11 o’clock on Monday, Mr A. Macdonald, J.P., presiding. Charles Brown and Daniel Davis were each fined 20s for drunkenness ; Charles Johnston and David Wright 103 each for conducting themselves in a manner calculated to cause a breach of the peace ; and Mary Ann Winters, for using obscene language, was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment. Thomas Franklyn, charged with stealing a swag, value £5, the property of Alfred Cook, was remanded till next day. There was a scarcity of defendants at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday morniDg, the first five persons called upon failing to answer to their names. His Worship remarked that apparently the Queen’s Birthday was still being kept up. Mr Wardell, R.M., delivered the following judgment in the action Broderick v. Harbor l Board, claim £2O, the value of personal effects left in a box on the wharf :—“ In this matter I I must, I think, enter judgment for the defendant Board. The by-laws of the Board' have been duly made and published, and the plaintiff must be taken to have knowledge of them. Sections 82 and 84 appear to me to protect the Board from liability to the plaintiff in this action, as the goods were deficiently marked, and were not tallied. I understand ‘ tallied’ to be a technical word, having the meaning given to it in the witnessbox —viz., an acknowledgment of the custody of the goods by a receipt being given to the depositor.” . Judgment was accordingly entered up, with costs, for the defendant Board. , The plaintiff’s wife, who was in Court, appeared to take the decision very much to

heart, and was led out of the chamber crying bitterly. In response to a suggestion from the Bench, Mr Skerrett (for the defendants) said be believed his clients were prepared to make some reparation to the plaintiff.