RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4660, 24 January 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, 23rd January. (Before John Bathgate, Esq., E.M.) Lange and Thoneman v. Whitson (master of the ship Dunedin).—ln this case, heard on 1 hur-day last, his Worship now delivere I judgment as follows: Tbe plaintiffs sue the defendant, as master of the ship Dunedin, for the value of one cask of whisky, which was delivered empty. Tho defence is that under the bill of lading the ship is not liable for leakage, unless eiused by improper stowage, and that the leakage was in this case caused by a cracked or defective stave. There is a crack in a slave on the under side of the cask, not quite opposite the bunghole. Two experts have been examined fur the defence, who have expressed a decided opinion that the damage arose from the defective stave. No skilled evidence was offered on the otber side, but the suggestion was made- that the cask may have been injured by caieless handling in the loading. I have examined the cask, and am of opinion that tho uncontradicted conclusion come to by the experts is the more probable cause of the damage, and that the loss is the result of au imperfect cask, for which the ship cann-t be held responsible. I have to point out that if I had been in any doubt, I would have decided against the ship, on account of the cask having been tampered with in tu-- absence of tho plaintiffs, at,d without notico to them. In all cases of dispute, care should be taken the survey should be made by indifferent persons, in the presence of both parties. Judgment would be for the defendant. —Mr Denniston, who appeared for the plaintiffs, submitted that His Wor.-hip should not give costs against his clients, the defendant having put himself in the wrong by not holding a proper survey.—His Worship would mark his sense of the defendant's impropriety by taking something off the cost?, and charged the half of them (twoguineas) against tbe defendant. Drake v. Jenkins and O'Connor was an action to recover damages for an alleged trespass. The parties are neiKhbourin..' settlers at Hastings, in the North Harbour and Blueskin district. Tho amount of damages claimed in each case was £15. Mr Bathgate appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Mouat for the defendant.—His Worship gave judgment for £1 10s, with costs, in each case. PORT CHALMER3. (Before Mr T. A. Mansford, R.M.) I.v the Wrong Place.-G. P. M'Kenzie was found guilty of haviKg been illegally on the premises known as the Albion Company's Wool Shed on the night of the 22nd inst., and was ordered to bo imprisoned for seven days. Quarrelsome.—G. Edwards and F. Fitz were charged with having behaved in a m-tnner calculated to provoke a breach of the peace on January 14th. Both pleaded guilty. It was shown by the evidence of John Hannah that the two men were lighting, the day being Sunday, and the people ju-.t returning from Uiiuvh. Tbey were fined 2es, or, in default, seven ■ days' imprisonmem. Breach or the Licensing Act.—Thomas Cunningham was charged with having sold liquor without a license to clo so, at his house, at Deborah Bay, ou January .B*l).—Mr Cook, for the defence, pleaded, fn stiy, a former discharge, and secondly, .Not guilty. He pointed-out how the whele of the evidence for the prosecution .had been heard on a former occasion, and the case had .then been dismissed ti all intents and purpor.es, and the law distinctly opposed trying a man twice for the earns offence.—His Worship replied that a certificate of dismissal had not betn issued, and therefore the case .would be hea -d again. It was disdiar^ed smply upon an informality iv the information. He should certainly tear it again, and Mr Cook could appeal if he liked. The case was then g^ne into, and Grojrg and Jenkyns, two witnesses, conclusively proved that they had ordered liquor from and been supplied with it by Mrs Cunningham on tho day in question, and had paid for it. E. Steele, a witn^is for the defence, Attempted to show that he was in the room all day, and did not sea liquor supplied to the two men or see any money pass. Cros-examiucd by the Police: He admitted l:aving spent sometime in g*ol, and was once conrieted of theft.—Mrs Cunningham was called, but, at thu mvgestion of the Bench, was not examined.—His \\ orsliip asked Mr Cook whether it was advisable to call the wife of defendant, who iv all pro-

liability would fairly contradict tho evidence ng»lnst him, and so render herself liable for an action for perjury.— His Worship considered there wns not the Shadow of tt doubt about the offence having been com mitted, and, as had cropped up in evidenco, had been committed for a long time before. The defendant had been previously convicted for a similar offence, and was dealt leniently with. This lime he would bs fined £25 with costs. Another Charge.—The same defendant was then arraigned for having, on the hame day, sold th-ee glasses of porter to Henry Jenkyna —Mr Cook objected to the caso bing heard, arguing.that it came under the samo head as the one for which he had just heen fiaed. It happened on tbe same day, and it did not matter whether one glass or sixteen had been Bold,— His Worship asked tor authority, nnd said th»t, according t' his opinion, if six persons wero served with liquor and piid for it in an unlicensed house, six different offences were thereby committed.—Mr Cook quoted, especially from " Valey on Summary Convictions," and cited cases to prove that in the case of poaching killing five harc3 only constituted one offence. Als-, in the case of a baker convicted of selling bread on Sunday: he retailed many loavop, but was only charged with one offence —His Worship pointed out tint, iutho first, case cited, the offcocc was tint of keeping dogs and engines, and in tho second for selling on a Sunday, in contravention to tho Act. He did not think there was any parallelism between the caac before the Court and those cited. He hail made up his mind it was a separate offence, and should hear it. Mr Cook might, however, continue his argument, although the Court they we'-e in was scarcely the ono for hearing legal arguments—The argument was continued for a time, and then Henry Jenkyns was sworn, and deposed to having, on tho day in question, ordered three glasses of porter, and; was supplied by Mrs Cunningham. Two men named Steele and Sprigss drank with him. and he paid for the. liquor in the afttrnoon, when the defendant aSKed: him for 14s—money he owed for liquor, including the threo glasses— Vf. Spriggs corroborated the evidence, but did not see the liquor paid for.—For the defence it was shown that the 14s paid was not for liquor, but for the board of a young woman named Mary Wean, who was intimate with tho witne-s Jenkyns.—The woman was placed in tho box, and swoie to this, and her evidence was corroborated by that of James Seymour and another witness—J. Nicolls.—His Worship had no doubt about the offence having been committed. The very fact of dealing in liquor constituted a transaction, according to the Ordinance of 1865. It was a pity d<-f»ndatit had not taken warning in time. He would be fined £25 and costs. Serious Charge.—Elizabeth Kose male application for sureties of the peace agaiust Thomas l'oyn on, inasmuch that he h-«d threatened to shoot ner.—The evidence on both sides was exceedingly contradictory; and, admissions . f a compromising character having boen made by the woman, the Bench remanded the case for rebutting evidence on her part.