Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Resident Magistrate's Court.

+ Friday, 16th Nov. (Before H. McCulloch, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Queale v. Livingtone— -Mr Wade for the plaintiff, and Mr Finn for the defendant. ClnimLlO, for damages alleged to have been caused by defendant illegally driving arid impounding three horses, the property of theplaintiff.— -The hearing of this case was continued : — W. Leckie, W. Hodgkinson, H. Buxton, A. Armand, and W. Malley, gave evidence for plaintiff. — Mr Finn bo omitted that there was no evidence to show that the horses had been overditrenj nor that -they had suffered any appreciable injury. As to the sufficiency of the fence, that was a matter of fact upon which the Coart would decide after all the evidence had been heard. It would be proved that the horses in question were a - nuisance in the neighborhood. He submitted that the plaintiff could not recover damages in any case. Illegally impounding was made an offence by the Act, and the penalty was provided. There was no provision by which damages contd be recovered, and the plaintiff should be confined to*the remedy afforded him by the Act. — D. Cameron, J. Nicholson, W. Grant, R. Stevens, J. Busbridge, T. Laney, and Livingstone (the defendant), were called for the defence. During the hearing it was suggested that in consequence of the conflicting evidence in regard to the nature of the fence, an authorised person should be sen: to inspect it. — His Worship did not think the fence had been a substantial one, and therefore the had been illegally impounded. The damage, however, had been very small, in fact it only amounted to what it had cost the the plaintiff to recover possession of the horses. — Judgment for plaintiff for L 2 2s, -with reduced costs, L8 7s 6i. Carroll v. Manson.— Mr Finn for plaintiff, and Mr Harvey for defendant. Plaintiff sought to recover the sum of L 49, the value of a quantity of whisky, which, it was alleged, was lost from a cask through a defective tap sold to him, and recommended by the defendant. — Tbe plaintiff gave evidence. On the 26th October be purchased a quarter cask of whisky from Messrs Stock and Co. He put it in the cellar of his hotel, Went to the shop of the defendant to buy a wooden tap, bat on defendant's recommendation he purchased instead a safety tap which locked with a key. The tap was put into the cask and seemed to be all right. Nothing went wrong as long as the key was left in the tap. It was taken out on the following night. The key should not have come out unless the tap was locked, and plaintiff, who took it out in tbe dark, naturally supposed that he left the tap all right. Defendant told him that when he took out the key tbe top would be shut. The day afterwards he found that all the whisky had run oat. Broke the tap purposely to see what the defect was, and found that the key would come out when the tap was open, and would not come out when it was shut. In cross-examination plaintiff said he had asked for a lock-tap from defendant. When he removed the key from the tap he did not pnt his hand underneath to see if it was leaking. — T1..6 defendant deposed that the plaintiff came into his shop and asked for a key-tap. Showed him two or three, and he selected the tap in question. Defendant made no special representation about the t*p. There seemed to be a defect in the tap, but no guarantee was given or asked for. Nothing was said about . a wooden tap. Did not say to plaintiff that the key would not come out when the tap was shut, but it should not have done eo.— James Stewart, plumber, deposed that the tap ;in question was defectively constructed. The defect would have been discovered if the tap had been tested by an expert. — Mr Harvey contended that the plaintiff could not recover as he had been guilty of contributary negligence, in not testing the tap.— His Worship reserved his decision. McDonald v. Wilson, Tame and Co. — In this case, to be heard at Dunedin, the evidence for the defendants, for whom Mr Bussell appeared, was taken.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST18831117.2.19

Bibliographic details

Southland Times, Issue 4794, 17 November 1883, Page 3

Word Count
717

Resident Magistrate's Court. Southland Times, Issue 4794, 17 November 1883, Page 3

Resident Magistrate's Court. Southland Times, Issue 4794, 17 November 1883, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert