RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5549, 10 January 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, January 9. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. One inebriate ■wan fined 55., or the usual alternative, for drunkenness. STEALING £265. Walter William Bacon, a young lad, in the employment of the Anchor Line of Backets, was charged with stealing on the 6th January, £265, the property of his employers. Inspector Atcheson asked for a remand, as he had only arrested the lad at 9 o’clock, and he was not prepared to go on with the case. His Worship said he would like to hoar some evidence first. The following evidence was then taken : Mr. Travers, jun., appeared for the prisoner. Alfred Henry Brind deposed that he was purser in the Anchor Line of steamers. On Monday last he deposited £265 in the agent’s office. The prisoner was in the office at the time, and gave witness some paper to wrap the money in. Inspector Atcheson deposed that this morning he found £206 under the house in which prisoner was living. His Worship then remanded the prisoner until next Tuesday. LARCENY. Joseph Johns was charged with stealing certain account books, of the value of £lO, from the barque Gorina, on January 7, the property of James Stuart, master of the said vessel. James Stewart, master of the barque, deposed that prisoner was steward on board the vessel. Prisoner deserted and took the books away with him. It appeared from further evidence that the information had been laid under some misapprehension, and the charge of larceny was withdrawn. DESERTION. The prisoner was then charged with desertion, and was sentenced to twelve weeks’ imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. Dr. Bradford v. Sellar.—Claim .£2 25., for professional services. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given to the plaintiff, for the amount claimed and costs. Bennett v. J. McOolL—Claim £l2 10s., for a promissory note. Mr, Ollivier appeared for the plaintiff, for whom judgment was given with costs. Zohrab, Knocker, and Co. v. William Langley.—Claim £l9 13s. 2d. Mr, Chapman appeared for the plaintiff. The amount was for goods supplied. Prom the evidence it appeared that £ls had been paid since the service of the summons. His Worship gave judgment for the full amount and costs, W. H. Jones v. James Shields.—Claim £1 25., balance of account for rent of a cottage. Judgment was given to the plaintiff for the amount claimed. Buck v. Thomdon.—Claim £ls 18s. Sd., for services rendered. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for the plaintiff for the full, amount. Southey v. Tramway Company.—Claim £1 5, as damages through the alleged carelessness t £ the driver of one of the Tramway Company ’e engines. Mr. Ollivier appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Travers, jun,, for the defendant. Henry Southey, a farmer at the Lower Hutt,

deposed that on 31st October he was going up Lambton-quay. When close to tho Athenaeum he was going towards Willis-street—tho tramway was coming towards him. Witness’ horse became frightened, and the engine ran into his cart breaking the wheel, and pitched witness out. Tho engine did not slacken its speed. Tho engine-driver could easily have seen that he (witness) was in difficulty. The cart is not worth £lO now. About two years it cost £25, and at the time of the accident was as good as new. James Mclntyre, engine driver, deposed that on the 31st October the horse in Southey’s cart turned suddenly round and backed across the lino. Had the horse not done so, the tram would have passed clear without striking the cart. Several other witnesses were examined for tho defence, and his Worship reserved judgment. Knight v. Tramway Company.—This was an action to recover damages for injuries done to plaintiff’s cart, owing to tho negligence of the defendants’ servant, an engine-driver. Tho evidence for tho plaintiff, a farmer at the Hutt, was to the effect that on tho 9th December ho was driving along Willis-street. In consequence of tho approach of the tram, the horse ho was driving became restive, and ho signalled the driver to stop. He did not do so, or lessen speed, but the tram came along, and the horso became more restive, and backed the cart on the line. Then the cart was smashed. Owing to the narrowness of the street ho could not avoid getting on the line when tho horse became restive. The damage done to tho cart amounted to £l3. There were various expenses, and ho had to hire a cart at 10s. per day for a fortnight.—Mr, Travers, for the defence, addressed the Bench, and said while he believed the company ought and would make compensation to persons whose vehicles were injured, it was unfair to assume negligence and attempt to fleece the company, as had been done in every case yet brought before the Court. In this instance there had been no negligence, it was purely an accident. The engine was going at the slowest possible speed, and every effort was taken to prevent the collision ; nor did he intend to impute negligence to Mr. Knight. It was simply an accident, and as the point was important he hoped the Court would carefully consider the law.—The engine-driver stated ho saw no signal from Mr. Knight, and the engine was not going more than two miles an hour. The cart was close to the engine when he noticed anything wrong, and it was too late to stop the engine. After further evidence had been taken, the enso was adjourned till the 20th instant, to allow of the attendance of two witnesses.