RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 1605, 21 February 1867, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

WiSi»HF.SDAy, Fkbbuaiit 20th. (Before the Hon. A. It. C. Strode, R.M ) Dtsr>KDEiu,r.—^Elizabeth Stecle, for being drunk, waa fined 20*; aud Mury Daniels', for disorderly conduct, the same amount. James Mitchell, for drunkenness was fined 10?. CIVIL CASE 3. Mr Sniythies mi'Jc an application to the Bench in tlie case of Hunter v. Baker. The plaintiff", he said, had appealed agninst the decision in that Court; the appeal hud been allowed ; and the case would come on again for bearing. But a difficulty arose. The principal witness was the Attorney-General. lie had now , left t!:c Province; it would be ; impossible to bring him here; and the plaintiff would be unable to obtain justice. It reuht, however, be in the power of his Worship to receive cvtilci'Ce otherwise than viea voce, and he (Mr Smythies) did not ccc why there might not be issued a commission similar to thnt adopted by the Supreme Court.— His Worship said be would take into consideration the statement made, aud give an answer on en early day. Johnston and Graham v. Gco. Corntvel], —rX"he plaintiffs were sub-contractors for the"piinttng of the Provincial Government Buildings. In consequence of the interruption of Mr CnrnwelTa contract, they were unable to finish their part of it, ami they claimed L3O in lul/ilmcnt ol tho contract, and LlO for contingent lops. Mr Stewart appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr Dcmpsey for the defendant. The plaintiffs considered that they had executed work to the value of Llls, and they had received payment* on cccount amounting to LBS. After the work was interrupted, fresh tendon were sent in ; but the contract was given by the Government to a painter named Webb. Circumstances in connection with the we were detailed, to prove Mr Cornwall's liability, and hi? admission of the same, after the recond contract bid been entered upon. For the defence, Mr Dempsey stated several nonfiuit points; but they were overrule!, aud he called Mr Cornwell ond a nutnher of profes.«io!'al witnesses, to prove that the pliinliffn had been dilatory in the fjiHcharge ol their contract, fiad been prifd in advance of their agreement or of the amount of work done, and had not fulfilled the-ir contract by executing their work in the "superior and workmanlike" manner implied in the specifhalil^.— After a lengthy hearing, the Magistrate considered the weight of evidence to by strongly in favor of the defendant, and gave judgment accordingly. A. Bi>yle and Co. v. Walter Guthrie.— The plaintiffs, who are importers of pro duce, claimed L3G 14a 10:1, loss sustained on a consignment of onions and potatoes received from the steamer Tararna by the defendant's lighter Agnes. For the plaintiffs, Mr Dempsey; for the defendant, Mr Harri?. R. Campbell, clerk to the plaintiffs, proved that when be went to take delivery of the goods, he found them in had condition, apparently from pressure. They had been placed on the deck of the lighter, and then covered with several hundreds of bags of rice. After tome difficulties as to delivery, they were sold by auction, realising L 6 I4a GJ. K. Brown, storeman, who had seen the goods on the vessel, said there were 1200 bujH of rice over them. They were very bod—nothing but "mullock." The grounds of defence were, that the goo;ls were in a damaged state when received from the steamer. This had been pointed out to the chief officer, and a receipt had not been given for them. They were mixed promiscuously with other goo-.ls in the steamer, and, if anywhere, had received the damage there*. From the manner in which they bad been received on the lighter, they could be stowed iv no other way, ond all due care had been taken by the defendant, who waa examined to prove these etate»menta. Some confusion in the hearing of the case was caused by two different bills of lading being presented, the consignees* cypy describing Port Chalmers as the port of destination, and the captain's copy dcpcribing it as the Port of Dnnedin. Mr Brown, shipping clerk to Mr Brodrick, proved that the freight did not include the lighterage, which was collected by Mr Berrill; and the defendant proved,-that though paid by Mr Barrill, aa lighter agent, he was employed by the Steamer Company's hulk- j keeper at Port Chalmers, and conßider'ad himself Mr Brodrick's servant. The Magistrate considered, fromtbe evidence, tb at the damage had not been: sustained <\n board the Agnesj bat more apparently on the Torarus, and that the remedy against

4«-t<*:■"); »,.«hb»