Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 211, 23 August 1862, Page 5

(To the Editor of the Daily Tjmks.) Sin, —You state in y.nir to-day's kvue that you fear'great hardships wiii be st;iil>red at the New Goldhews. " ooubt you .'" said " the Bruce/' " I make sicker." You itiight have said tliat its b'iug impossibla, in the present state of the country far dray* t<> arrive at the scene of action nearly so soon as tlie adventurous di^er, starvation would very jKwsibiy lw the itKiilt ot'u trip to Manuhcrikb, by men unused to privation, and ill-supplied with provisions at startinsf. In media tut'uaiinti* iblt. 1 Jiave aiwavs remarked with pleasure that you ndiicrc steadily to this sensible motto, ;u weil as—to do you justice—to your more dashing Iriuenium viam, ~kc. and that you very prudeutly avoid «iviug utterance to poems of rejoicing or gloomy iorbodingi ia any of the changes whicli succeed each other, almost as rapidly as those of ?. Kideidoseopi* in thw new and uudeveloped land.

J* the advance of this army of modern civilization 13 stopped for want of Mippliu-t—if its' adva'sce guard die of hunger and coll, it will be Mr. Editor, because you luivc not siUHck-nUy (what shall I .my ?) persu'i'kd the Govemmeut into making theruad from Valpy's.

Nov.- sir, you puimnellol that miserable little linpvriam in impcria-tUe. Town Hoard into n-v and vitality, as O'iJri m did Peter .Simple during his sea-sickness. Tne ladi.H—you shy fellow ! are profu-* in tlicir expre*ioas of gratitu tv to j-ou fur relca-iiitsr them from their long ami doleful imprisonment, suffered (but not in silt»noe} during th« weary months that King Mud, and hi-s myrmidoin the Town Hoard ruled iv ti is city.

Now tlie-J, Mr. Editor, tar th>; magnates of the land. As the " Game Chickens observed of Mr. Dombev. that he wa.s a very stiil looking cove, but that it, >vi.-> within the powers of science to double him up k>. Sir, I trust to you to awaken- those gentlemen to a sonsc of their responsibility at once. A few hundred pound.-* judiciously expended will do all, aye more than all that is require!. There is a sideling to be cut, and two or three crei-^tii be filled in with rough BtriC3 (which ai'j plentiful in the vicinity), and a dray road w made. The distance of this line of 10a 1 (t>y Valpy's, &g.), in only 111 miles, and maps art? to bd had of the route all over the town. Isy ihe \V..ikouaiti, it is not Je.<s tluu 150 to 100 iniW-s, and then the pas-tage by water is always an objection, and au uxpeace.

Cobb and Co. too, I am credibly informed, are willing to undertake the iu.ul contract by tl»i« route, and to act on their usual system in Australia, viz, to make tbeir mail contract help out their expenditure, aud^rive the public the benefit.in low-fares and quick conveyance. 1 will not intrude further'on- your valuable space, but trmtiug you will interest yourself in this affair, 1 am, .Sir, -.* Y"oura faithfully, A DiGuEn. Dunedin, iJlst August, 1802.

RESIDENT -MAGISTRATE'S COURT Fjudav. Avauar 23m>, 1802. (Before A. C. Stro-le, Esq., 11.M.)

Hruta.i, A.s«Ai'f.T. Robert Hartley v. William .Ilichards:>n.—The defendant dented (he chartf?. Air. Ward appeared for th«* phiiiitiff. It appeared that the plaintiff, who is a butcher, went to the'defendant'* place of business in Wa'kwr-srreet. on Tliursd.iv, about mid-day, to purchase a pair of.fsozks; the de•femlant anil hi- wife w^re in the shop ; the defendant would not supply him with the socks as he hn-1 no money ; the plaintiff then wont away and borrower .55., and having reUirntid therw tho money down on the counter, accompanying the action with an ex eeeilin^ly offensive remark, whereupon the defendant rushed at him and inflicted some wounds upon the plaintiff. According to the evidence of Dr. Urqufiart, Kuch wounds must have been, produced by a sharp instrument; in his opinion they could not have been caused by a ring ; there were two cuts, one beneath the eyebrow, another below the eye, besides an abrasion. Dr. Murphy, a witness for the defence, spoke as to the otfrnnve remark ma<!e by the plaintiff; be bad not examined tbo latter's injuries, but wai present when the assault took place, and did not sec anything-in Mr. ■ Richardson's hands. His Worship stated't was the .-defendant's duty to have called in the police, in'stejid of committing so furious an assault; the assault in met had bwn a mo^t ferocious one, and he was determined to mike an example. Fined £5, or in default, one month's imprisonment. NurgASCK.—James Nimo.-i, in tiro matter of Wil son and Wain, reported the nuisance unabated. Fined SOjand costs. CIVIL CASES. Greenlaw v. Smith.—Claim for £10 13s Od. Mr. M'Gfesror appeared for the plaintiff. This action was brought to recover the above sum, being wapres for carpentering', &c. For the defence it was urged that all the work, with some trilling exceptions, was included in the specifications in the contract. It was, however, satisfactorily shown that the plaintiff had been hired by tho day to make certain alterations afj ter the contract was completed. I Hl3 Worship gave-judgment for the plaintiff in , th« sum of L 9. together with costs.

Christy v. S*me.—Claim for Ll3 13? Od. Judc- ! meat for the plaintiff for Ll2, and costs. BUlem v. S'ime.-—Claim for L 3-15*. Judgment for the plaintiff for L 3 03, and costs. Ililes v. Simpson.—Claim for II), bein<r the amount of a valueless cheque paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, who, in presenting1 the cheque* at the Bank of New Zealand, was informed there were no assets. Judgment for the plaintiff for L 5, and co>ts. Same v. M'Kenrick. —Claim for L4 G* yd. -Judgment for the plaintiff for L4 0? 9.1, and costs. * Cross v. Hurstlett.—Claim for Ll9 4s ftl. Particulars of demand were for six weeks and a half service at 10;} per day. Mr. M'Gregor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. South for the defence. The plea was never indebted. His Worship was of opinion that no hiring had been proved, and, consequently, dismissed the case with costs. Rafferty v. Smith.- Claim for 15s. Judgment for the^ plaintiff for 10s. and costs. Smith v. -.Marshall.— It was decided in this case that Mr. Campbell was the person liable. Case disroissed'without costs. Jennings v. Gre^or.—Claim for LlO. Judgment for the plaintiff by default for LlO and costs. Smith v. Dixon.—Claim for L 9 2a. No appearance. Case dismissed. Pitner v. CuniiaiuK.—Claim for LI 7s. Judgment for tho plaintiff by default for LI 7s. and costs. Morrison v. Tucker. — Claim for L 5 18s. Judgment for the plaintiff by default for L 5 183. and costs. Wittelsee Brothers y. Hasting Baker.—Claim for Ll6 17s 6J % Judgment for the plaintiffs by default for Ll6 17s. Gd. and cos's. _ Tickle v. Pole.—Judgment was yesterday given in this case.. His Wophip was of opinion that the endorsement on the bill of lading did not relieve the defendant from his liability as a common carrier. If the defendant was dissatisfied with the manner in which the grates were paoked, he considered it was hw duty to toil attention to i by refusing to tak«

them in tbeir then coalition, or he could have pursued another course—that of unking; a special contract, and charging tuch a rate of freight as would indemnify him against all 10.-f. At the hearing of tae case, a point had been rabji by the counsel for the defendant as to whom the master of a .ship should be responsible- the consignor or consignee. That was a poiut of some difficulty, and would, he apprehended, depend upon the particular circumstances of each case. In the present instance, he thought the action was properly brought by the plaintiff, as the consignee ot tho goods. From what lie had said, it would be seen that it was his opinion that the defendant in that case was liable, and he therefore gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of 120. together with costs.