District Court.

Southland Times, Issue 4489, 29 November 1882, Page 2

District Court.

Tuesday, Nov. 28. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) His Honor took his seat at 11 a.m. when a jury of four was empatinelled to try the CIVIL CASES. Harris aDd Hughes v. the Waimea Plains Railway Co. — Thifi was a claim to recover the sum of £200 for loss sustained by the destruction of stock-in-trade by fire caused by sparks from an engine belonging to the defendant's company. Mr Finn and Mr Reade appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Russell for the defendants. Mr Reade explained that this case had nothing to do with one previously brought in the Diatrict Court, against the defendants by 3«rriv; who** shim &r^m*f«l fWtVA^

by the burning of his house on the occaßion in question was settled by the payment of £125. The defendants were under the impression that this settled everything, and he understood they relied upon this for their defence, but Hughes had nothing to do with that case, and could not lay a claim for damage's sustained by the bnrnis"- down of his partner's private house. — Richard Harris, one of the plaintiffs, stated that Thos. Hughes and bimselt bad » grocery and drapery store at Lowther in Dec!, ■ 1880. In the latter month their premises 'were burned down, and their stock-in-trade destroyed by a fire caused by a spark from an engine owned by the Company. The total damage sustained by the plaintiffs as partners, by the fire amounted to £330, of which £150 was covered by insurance. The grocery stock at the time was worth £180, of which JBIOO was coVered by insurance. They accordingly claimed £80 for the damage to the 'goods. : Cross-examined by ; Mr Russell : A claim was first made for £450 for all damage -sustained,; but this ; was partly, compromised by the payment of £110, ito: himself ifqt, the damage to his private housed He could not say whether the Company would or would not have made the compromise they did had they known that another claim would have arisea out of the same fire.;. He.rwaa not sure if his partner was of age at that time, but the fact of his being a minor had nothing to do with his having made the claim in his name and not in that of the firm. The first claim had nothing to do with the present one. — Thomas Hughes said he was twenty years of age, although he did not seem to be 'sure, and had been a partner with Harrisabout a year before the premises were destroyed in December, 1880. He sold out bis shares in the building society to go into partnership. Although a minor hia name was accepted, conjointly with that of his partner,at the bank. — By Mr Russell : He arid his'partner had eight or nine dogs apiece, and he had three ferrets. He was out rabbiting on the day of the fire. Sometimes, although not often, he and his partner went put rabbiting together, but he denied that that was their real occupation, and that the grocery partnership was only an amusement.— Mrs Harris, wife of one. of the plaintiffs, gave corroborative evidence. Hughes "was her brother; although she too seemed rather doubiful about his age.—^After further corroborative evidence had been given, Mr Russell nrged that the first summons clearly snowed that the buildings of the fiim were included in the claim, which was settled eighteen months ago. He contended that Harris could not now, by joining with Hughes, claim damages for a matter which was identified with the same cause of action. His Honor ultimately delivered a nonsuit with costs. NON-SUITED. McDonald v. Robson.— This was an action to recover £146, being the amount of award made by two arbitrators and an umpire. Mr Finn appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Russell for defendant. It appeared that one part of the award bad been made by the arbitrators, and the remainder by the umpire without having the evidence of either plaintiff or defendant except through the arbitrators. His Honor held that tbe award was bad as the umpire should have decided upon the entire claim after hearing the evidence. He accordingly delivered a non-suit, with costs. PETITIONS IN BANKRUPTCY. Mr Finn moved for an order of discbarge in the case of John Murphy, laborer,of Fernhills, as also in that of Peter Calder, draper, of|lnvercargill. Order was granted in each case. ___ ____—