MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 5027, 7 June 1889, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TlMAßU— Friday, June 7,1889, (Before C. A, Wray, Esq, R. M. JUVENILE CGIIIE James Auld, 10 years, and William Auld, 11 years, were charged with breaking into the house of Thomas Clark of Saltwater Creek, on tho 6th, and stealing therefrom 15s in silver, a gold finger ring, a gold scarf pin, a wooden pipe, and a pocket knife. As tho lads had only just been arrested a remand was saked for. They were remanded till to-morrow, and tho gaoler was directed to keep them separate from other prisoners. A BAD HUSBAND AND FATHER, Kobert Owen of Timaru, was charged on the information of his wife, Elizabeth Owens, with willfully failing to provide her, and their five children, with adequate means of support. This case was adjourned for seven days. PROHIBITION OEDEIt.

On the information or Sergeant Livingstone, defendant consenting, a prohibition order was issued against the supply of spirituous liquors to Neil Marquis, to apply to the Timaru and Levels Licensing districts for twelve months. A BY-LAW CASE. Jas. Cochrane, for leaving a vehicle and horses unattended in a street of the borough, was fined ss. THE PACTOBIE3 ACTS. Four persons were charged by the Inspector under tho Employment of Females and Others Ac's (Sergeant Livingstone) with unlawfully employing young persons and females in their factories, on the afternoon of Thursday May 30th, Thursday being the day appointed a holiday by public notification of j the Borough Council in place of Saturday. I These were 0. Atkinson (Woollen Factory), I three females ; P. W. Hutton, bookseller, and bookbinder etc, one female ; S. Anderson, Boot Factory, two boys and five females; and 0 Kelly, tailor, five females. Mr Anderson asked for an adjournment for three weeks, ns ho was approaching the Borough Council on tho subject of the holiday and the adjournment being granted in this case, the other defendants also asked for and were allowed a similar adjournment. His Worship told tho defendants, that whatever might be the result of their appeal to the Borough Council they must respect the law as it stands in the meantime. CIVIL CASE. Davidson v. Edgeworth, claim £47, general and special damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff through being kicked by a horse in charge of defendant, at the Timaru show grounds in October last. The claim was made up ns follows: —general damages, £10; 16 weeks loss of employment at 30s, £24; cost of maintenance and attendance at the hospital, £8; other medical expenses, £4; travelling expenses attending hospital. £1: total £l7. Mr Hay for plaintiff, Mr White for defendant. His Worship gave judgment in this case as follows The plaintiff aud defendant in this action were at the Timaru bhow on tho filatOctpber last, the former ia pf two

I marcs, and (lie latter leading an entire horse, and were wailing to leave the ground at 4 p.m. It was shown at the trial that the plaintiff was near the gate and that when it was opened by tbo gatekeeper he proceeded to go out in charge of his two mares', bo being the first in a lino, a number of others being behind ready to go out in tbeir turn. The defendant was net in this line, but was away from the gat o in a different part of the ground with his entire horse, and instead of waiting till tbo mares bad gone out bo led his entire forward (regardless of the gatekeeper, who called to him several times to go back), and attempted to go out at the gate, and in front of plaintiff and bis mares. In going through the gateway the defendants horse kicked the plaintiff, and caused the injuries now sued for. It was shown that it was a dangerous thing to bring an entire in front of mares in a gateway, and that it is customary on occasions of this kind to lot the mares go out first ; that in this instance there was no room at the gateway but what defendant forced for himself. An experienced man must have known the risk he was running and should certainly have pawl attention to tl e gatekeeper, who spoke loan enough, and was heard to give him warning by others, and presumably by the defendant. The defendant then in his eagerness to leave the show ground, leading an entire amongst mares and horses, acted in a rash and imprudent manner, and mast bo held liable for damages. No conconfributory negligence by the plaintiff was proved. In considering the question of damages, however, I lie conduct of the plaintiff after the accident has to be considered. If he was imprudent aril thereby retarded his own recovery, that must go in reduction of damages, and I think the medical and other testimony shows that in going to the Oamaru show, and in not allowing himself perfect rest prescribed by Dr Hayes, bis illness and consequent incapacity' to work were considerably aggravated. Dr ilayes describes him as an unmanageable patient throughout, and says that it took a week to put his knee in, and that six weeks further rest should have made the knee ns right as ever, with proper care. I assess the damages as follows: —3eycn weeks loss of time at 30s, £lO 10s ; medical attendance, £3; hospital, £8; other damages, £1; total £22 10s; for which I give judgment for plaintiff with costs.