MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12040, 11 May 1901, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, Mav 10. , (Beforp E. H Carfw, S.M.) Searle and Eberliardt v. Ccorgc 11. 13ain.— Claim n 17s> 4d, for goods supplied.— nirnt by clefault (or aiununt claimed ami Cs costs. Duiifdin Engineering Company v. The Macrcwheima (J old Dredging Company.— Claim i'lo< 4s, lor dredfing material.—Judgment by default for amount claimed with i'O 2s costs. William Owen v. Jtilin Miinrn.-Claim CI 13s 7d. for goods isuppliecl.-Jiu!»uinit by default for II Via 7d, and costs (G»). Wlkie and Co. (as assignees nf die " Ternperance Standard") v. J. Douglas, sen.— Claim £1 i'Js c<l, for suhsrrintioni to the "Temperance Standard." -Mr W. h. Mnore apuoared for plaintiffs.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed, and (oslt fs. Same v. William U'urlon ((ireyiuoiilh)- - Claim £1 13s, for subscription-!.—Mr V.' h. Moore appeared for plaintiffs.—Judgment for amount, and 8s costs. S. r.ulherford v. Benjamin Shiitl.-Claim «D fis 2il ou an IOU.-ilr !•'. Z. Jloorc w-

peated for plaintiff—The cose wan adjourned for further evidence with respect to the document. R. Wise and Co. v. Beer and Son.-Clahn £1, (or advertising in Wise's Diroctory.-Jmlg-nieiit for amount and costs (Gs). John Bain, jim. (of Halfway Bush, dairyman) v. the Dnnedin City Corporation and D. M'lntyre, road contractor.—Claim £'25, for injuries due (o the negligence of defendants in ctirlcssly filling in a drain in Ifussell street, whereby plaintiff was thrown from his milkcjrl and sustained injuries to his forearm and wrist on Sunday, 23rd September, 1900.— Messrs A. S. Adams and John Wilkinson uppeared for plaintiff; Mr F. li. Chapman for the corporation; and Mr Sim for Mr M'lntyre. —Mr Alliums in opening his case, quoin] the following authorities:—Penny v. The Wimbledon Urban Council (67 h. J., Q. 8., 750), Jlardalrer v. Idle District Council (05, L. ,]., Q. 8., 3St), The Municipal Council, Sydney, v. Burke (L.R., A.C., 1805, m).-Tho following witnesses were called on behulf of the plaintiff:—Dr Pateraon, plaintiff (John Bain), W. Youngmiin, D. Hoy, James M'Dotigal), Robert Morrison, William Henderson, Nathaniel Piiterson, Smith, ami John Dain, ten—Mr Sim, in replying for the- defendant M'lntyre, ■aid the question was simply whether or not M'lnlyre had been negligent. M'lntyrc held that he had done all that a careful man ought to do. He-called defendant and an ■employee named Miller to reliut the presumpfion" of damages.—Mr Chapmnii said the corporation were in n different position from Mlntyre, ami that the cqjpurrtins drain into whMi nlaintifi"s horse wae said to hiivo put his foot was not bcinj; laid by or for the corporation. The plaintiff might have n case, against M'lntyre, or agninst the householder to whose prooerfy tlio ennncctimr drain was (njccii, Imt certainly not nqainet the corporation. Mr Chnomn'n called Daniel M'lntyre, Robert M'ller, (H:d Archibald Sinclair (eorvmration nub-inspector of road works).—His Worship iwii) lie would take lime and consider his decision.