RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4119, 3 June 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, June 2. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq.) Several drunkards were fiued ss. and costs. EXCESSIVE CAE CHARGE. Robert Watson, a cabdriver, was charged by J ames C'ostall with demanding more than the regulation fare. '* The complainant stated that lie hired the defendant to take him from Barrett's corner to ins house in Hill Street, for which the defendant charged Is, the legal faro being 6d. There being no doubt about the facts, his Worship fined the defendant ss. and costs, and ordered him to refund the amount overcharged. DESERTION. George Bain, a seaman belonging to the McCallum More, was charged with desertion, and committed to gaol for fourteen days. STOWAWAY. James Robinson, a stowaway on board the ship Result, from Newcastle, was remanded till Thursday. pawnbroker's license. Henry Lipmau Cohen applied for a pawnbroker's license, which was granted. CIVIL CASES. Hayward v. Carter —Claim, £2l Gs 8d ; adjourned till June 9. R. Mulhem v. D. Galloway—Claim, £3G, destruction by fire of nine acres of fallen bush through the negligence of the defendant. Both parties are fanners at PahautanuL Evidence was taken upon a previous occasion, and yesterday His Worship, in delivering judgment, said it was very difficult to arrive at a conclusion with regard to the facts of the case. It seemed incredible that a rata tree fired in the month of April should continue to bum ■without intermission up to November 21. It was admitted by the defendant that he fired the tree in April, but he saw that it was extinguished in the month of August. The season of the year must be taken into account. It was winter, and much rain had fallen. The evidence also was not fairly conclusive that the fire originated from the rata tree. It appeared to have started some distance from it, probably a chain off. There was grave suspicion that the fire started from the rata tree, but no positive proof. Plaintiff stated that he warned defendant about the fire from this tree, but defendant denied this, and it was, therefore, oath against oath. There seemed to be no doubt from the evidence of Mr Roster and others, that in November a fire was burning in or near the rata tree, but it was difficult to determine whether this was the remains of the fire lighted by .the defendant in April, or those of another fire made accidentally or designedly by some persons unknown. If the latter .'ere the case, then it would be a failure of justice to make the defendant liable. Altogether, seeing that it was nearly impossible to believe that a fire could last in a rata tree for seven months, and all through a winter, he must hold that the proof was too doubtful to make the defendant liable. He should, therefore, enter a nonsuit with costs, £9 ICs.