RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 6154, 29 October 1881, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

« . Thursday, 27th Octobkb. (Before W. U. Simpson, Esq., 11.M.) Re Aitchison v. Young.-His Worship sit to hear ft casein which Messrs Stavely, Austin, and Co., W. O. Neill, anil J. C. Morris (trustee in the bankrupt estate .of James Aitchison) each made claim separately and severally to tho sum of £21 03, which had come into the hands of the Clerk of the Court through a judgment that had been obtained by Aitchison against Young. —Mr Sinclair appeared for Stavely, Austin, and Co., and J!r Dcnniston for W. O. Neill.—The evidence for the first plaintiff was to the effect that Aitchison, in consideration of ft bill that had fallen due, gave an order to receive the sum as soon as it should be received by the clerk. This order was given on the 20th September, but was withdrawn previous to the Clerk of the Court receiving the money, Aitchison stating on its withdrawal that ho would receive and pay the money himself. The evidence for W. G. Neill was that the promissory i.ote upon which Young had been sued was a security originally held by him, and given up to Aitchison for the purpose of suing.-His Worship reserved judgFriday, 2Stu October. (Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) In the following cases the defendants did not appear, and judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default :-A. Campbell v. w. Wright, claim £-1 13-s, on a judgin-. lit summons (defendant was ordered to pay tho amount within seven days, or in default seven days' imprisonment); B. K. Glillan v. IV. Carson, £1 12s tid, for boots sold; O'Donncll Bros, and M'Alu lin v. Larnach and Co. (Ravenßbournc), claim £62 Is lid ; K. Margrie v. W. Osbouruc, claim £7 Us, goods sold and delivered. William Tougood v. E. Alexander.—Claim £50, being dunages for injuries sustained by plaintiff through defendant's servant neglecting to drive his cab in a proper manner, whereby plaintiff's leg was broken. Mr ilacDermott appeared tor the piamtifl, and Mi Dennistou for tho defendant. —Mr Jjenniston said the preliminary point in this case w*s (hi- nuestion of whether a minor could buo in this Cour? He maintained he: could. not.-Ur MooDermott did not agree with this opinion, and said that tho same thing was daily done in Victoria, where-as was t-ne case in this action-a minor could sue for damages through his next friend.-Alr Denniston contended that tho statute said that a minor uould onlj «uc for wages, and his Worship agreed with this view of tho case —Mr IlacDermott said he would be agreeable to have this matter argued in the Supreme Court. -After a IODg argument on the aubject, his Worship decided that he had no jurisdiction, and the case was ""Thomas Gdanitz and Joseph Kreft, labourers, Pino Hill, v. John Richards, draper, of George street, Dunedin. and Benjamin Jeffs, labourer, Pine Hill. Tins was an actiu., brought to recover from the do I fendauta tho sum of £80, for damages done.

to buildings, fencing, and wood by a fire, "which took place ou Friday, the 14th Octobor, at Fine Hill, the said fire being caused by the defendants.—llr atout appeared on belialf of the jdaintiffn, and Mr Macdonald for the defendant Richards.—The plaintiil Gdanitz gavo evidence as to the damage done by the fire, and said ho waa certain the fire originated on Richarda1 land.-Benjamin Jeila was next called, and his evidence wont loshow that the property destroyed nn the plaintiff's land was over-valued. He stated that there were several fires, and the timber was in a blaze all over Wood's property.—ln answer to questions by the counsel for the plaintiffs, witness Btated that he v,.a clearing J«i,J for tho defendant. He would swear that he had nut a fire burning on the land he was clearing that morning.—Joseph Kref t stated that the first flro he saw was on Richards' land. He valued the damage to his property at the same as his partner He saw'the previous witness (Jeffs) preparing the fire by putting wood on the blazing heaps. There was ne firo on witness' property for a week before the fire that took place on Friday, and there was no wood smouldering on hii section on tho morning of the fire. They tried hard to keep the fire off their (the plaintiffs') land by throwing water on it. The lire was nil over M'Pherson's section shortly alter 11 o'clock. The shed that was burnt down was worth £10. It was 21ft x 10ft. There were 35 cords of firewood burnt. A lot of other timber was also destroyed. The ground was held on lease from Mr Larnach.—Robert G. M'Pherson deposed that he was a settler, ami his land adjoined Mr Richards' property. He was quite positive the fire came from Richards'. This fire also destroyed a portion of witness' fencing, and nearly burned down Marshall's house. He heard one of the men who were engaged in clearing tho land say, "There's a big heap of timber that was standing there this morning all gone. This is better than half a day's work for me." —Another witness, named M'Gregor, gave corroborative cviden> c as to where the fire came from. The track of the fire could bo ojsiiy traced to Richards' land.— Another witness, named Dometz, ako gave evidence. He stated that he saw the fire burning on Richards' land near tho road.—A Maori named George Pratt, of Waikouaiti, cave evidence as to the wood being burnt. This was tho case for the plaintiffs—Mr Micdonald then proceeded to address the Bench,'and contended that Mr Richards could not be held liable unless he had ordered the work to be carried out whereby the diimagc was done. lie cited a number of cases in support cif this view of the case.—After hearing Mr Macdonald his Worship remarked that he did not think they had time to finish the case, and it was accordingly adjourned till Thursday next. Alary Ann Tewsley and others v. J. Winter: and others, trustees of the Loyal Ravensbourne Lodge, No. 25,1.0.0.F.—C1aim £32, being tho interest on a loan.—Mr MacDermott appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Stotr. (or the defendants.—Tho defendants, after a brief argument between counsel, consented to a judgment under section 19 of "Tho Friendly Societies Act, 1877," against tho defendants as trustees only, the execution to issue against the funds of tho Society, and not against tho personal effects o! the defendants. Jamea liurns v. John Collar.—Claim £50, damages sustained by plaintiil through his being knocked down and run over by defendant's horse and cart.—Mr MacDermutt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Stout for the defendant.—After hearing tho evidence his Worship decided that there were no grounds for a claim, and the plaintiff was nonsuited. Liddyand another v. Joints Campbell. -Claim £G5 ISa, for sod fencing.—ln this case the evidence had been heard on a previous occasion, and his Worship reserved judgment.—The plaintiffs were now nonsuitoJ- _______^___ A REPLY. TO TUB KUirOK. Sir,—After the very able remarks of your anonymous correspondent " Brother Bung-(ier)," I wonder what noxt. Might not sonic of my friends charge me with being opposed to the use of locomotives on railways because I spoke of them having been sent to Christchurch for repairs ? This would be as fair aa the charge lie has so ably and earnestly brought asainstme. Whether lam with or against the employment 0( ladies as barmaids is bcaiJc tho question. I was speaking of what I thought was the wavering policy of the representatives, and in illustration mentioned this class legislation, which was much written about at the time. Two things I have refrained from, and always intend odo so—viz., neither to reply to such correspondents as " Brother Bung," who are brave enough only to stab in the dark, nor to any at: ack on me personally, and in the future, as in the past, will abide by this principle. But if my friend really is desirous of !so much information, he can have it by publishing his name, or sending it to -Yours, &c, Eu. Wilsox, Wain's Hotel, Manse street, Dunedin. October 2Sth.