MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11323, 17 January 1899, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday,- January 16,' ■ (Before Mr ErH. Carew, S.MJ

Judgment for. the ■ plain tiff, with costs,' was. given in each of the following undefended cases: —Bing,: Harris, and Co. (£o.- whom Mr Brown-Durie appeared) v. .William Taylor (Timaru), claim £2 ss< 7d, goods supplied; Massey,' Harris, ■• and Co..'({or-whom-.Mr Cook, appeared) v. Robert Carr -(Patearoa), claim £1 12s Id,' balance of a promissory note; same v. A: Finlayson (Diptoii), claim £89 11s lid, on a i>reimssory note (costs £3 6s); New Zealand Tablet Company v... John O'Donaghue (St. Andrews),' claim , £i 16s .Gd, goods, supplied. William 'Hewitt (of Dunedin, hotelkeeper) and Emma Hewitt v. William Coraiack "(Caver-; sham).—Claim £30 7s and:£lo respectively, for damage's. i c-'r injuries alleged to .have ■ bcen.;.suE-. taihed by defendant's negligence.—Jir Barclay,appeared for plaintiffs,, and Mr Hanlon- for, the defence.—The plaintiffs': case was that on Noyeinber.7.last they were.driving around Ogg's. corner, South Duncdm, when a horse attached, to a spring cart'belonging to the dereiidant, which had bolted from-Princes street,.ran into, them. The plaintiffs', vehicle was ; smashed,; William "Hewitt- was'rendered 'unconscious .and the"'other, plaintiff'sustame<l:,'minor.iiujuries.—^ After'the case had progressed to soin'e extent,, a consultation was'.h'eld.betweeri the parties, after, which'his Worship was notified that .a settlement had been .arrived at:—The c^se was accordingly struck out. ~' ,- .-' Ballarat Loan Office v. Owen M'CoiTJiacli.— Claim £3 10s, on a .judgment "summons.—Defendant, " who' did not appear, was ordered to pay 13s still due, with'costs, on February. 4, 1898, in default 48 hours' imoViaonment. .., ■ Eeid and Gray v. the New .Zealand Shipping Ccnipauy.—Claim £4.0, damages done to a ship; ment of wire carried by the ship Turakina from London "to Dunedin.—The Hon. 3. Mac-Gl-egor appeared for the plaintiffs, and Sir Hoiking for the defendants.—-In this case, which was \ concluded _on ." Friday,, his Worship gave judgment as follows :—" The pl-iin-"tiff company made a . strong prima fa-cie case that the . fencing ...wire was -damaged.. whiio iii the ship. Nine witnesses more or less corroborated each other, that the was marked and stained with artificial manure at the time it was landed on the.wharf. The evidence is that of the men who handled the wire \from the slings and stacked it on the whariv the Harbour, Board's tally clerk, and Mr Gibson, the carrier. The latter says that he saw the wire while in the ship's.slings; that it was in very bad order, covered with superphosphates^ arid in some, cases it was on -the inside of the coils, and between the roil, of the wife, and in consequence of what he saw he declined to .take delivery until he communicated with the owners of it. The tally clerk'says that he examined, the wire when coming out o'tlie ship, and mrie the remark that it was-caked, as if in it for a long time, and between the wire. Askrid why he.gave a clean receipt,-lie replied that, the ship's tally- clerk said:. ' They am taking it away, and we agreed to make no remark against the. wire.' ■•The -fact seems to be that some of the men had an impression that.' the artificial"manure though marking .tho'wire did-not damage it. There is a- strong defence, and six witnesses with more or less force deny that the wire was landed in a damaged state. One of these .witnesses, Henry Hornby,- the foreman stevedore, said: ' I saw nothing wroiig with it. I did not pay any particular attention to the wire. I would riot have thought the white stuff did any harm to the wire if I had seen any on it.' All these witnesses may have said what they believe to be true, but if there was artificial manure upon' the wire, and they were not aware ic. wan a source of damage to the wire,' the probability 13 they would not have noticed it, or if they did it would easily pas 3 from their memory. The position on the wharf' was different.. Attention was drawn to the state of the wire; it was talked about, and consequently would be noticed, and more iikely to lie remembered. This probably explains the contradictory evidence, and is more probable than that a number of men oh one side or the. other, with little or no personal interest iv the matter, have sworn what they know to be untrue. The fact that after "rain had fallen, r-nd t.'-.e wharf became wet, the men receiving the wire on the wharf spread a quantity of'straw where.the wire would pass over shows they were exercising c&re in their, work. There is- also evidence that the men in the ship's hold sending the cargo up the hatch'were careful not to damage the cargo, and it does not necessarily follow that they are to blame for ihe damage. It is not necessary that the plaintiffs should show how, or at what time, the damage occurred in the ship. The wire is admitted by the bill ot lading to have been received'in good order, and was damaged .at come time by negligence in allowing it to come into contact with artificial manure, which was another part of the ship's cargo. The evidence shows the wire was damaged to the extent pf 25s per ton. Jiidgment for plaintiffs for £31 ss, with costs (£l3 35)." •