MAGISTERIAL

Timaru Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 3559, 9 May 1901, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

TIMARU—WEDNESDAY, MAY] 8,1901. (Before C.A. Wray, Esq., S.M.) CASE WITHDRAWN. A young man was charged with stealing a buggy, horse and harness from Mr Cookson, of Ashburton. Sergeant Green said that, the property had been recovered, and Mr Cookson. wished to withdraw the information. As far as he (the sergeant) knew no felonious intent could be proved against tha accused. The buggy and horse had been hired out and not returned.

His Worship granted the application, remarking that some people were very fond of using the criminal law to recover their property.

MaeintosTi v. J. C. Bright, claim £l4 18s 2d; judgment summons. Plaintiff gave evidence" that the de 7 f endant, on the case being adjourned from a previous sitting, gave an order for part of the amount, but at once withdrew the money. He was earning fair wages on the wharf.

His Worship made an order for . the; money to be paid, in default three weeks' imprisonment - Garrick Bros. vJ New Zealand Trust and Loan Company, adjourned from last sitting. Mr Rolleston for plaintiffs, Mr Raymond for defendant. Mr Rolleston requested permission to recall the witness Robb to give evidence on several points before counsel's addresses were heard.

Mr Raymond opposed. The application, would necessitate him calling further evidence for the defendants, and might indefinitely prolong the litigation. His Worship refused to grant the application. He did not think it advisable to allow a witness to be recalled when, the case was closed and adjourned' for counsel's addresses.

Counsel then addressed the Court, reviewing and commenting on the evidence at some length. His Worship, in giving judgment, said the 'first question to decide was whether the plaintiffs had proved that a mistake had been made. After taking delivery it was the plaintiffs'- duty to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that such a mistake had occurred. '' It was stated that plaintiffs' had not expected to have such a large number of-sheep delivered to them, consequently they- should have taken extra care to get the full number. After taking . delivery, Mr Garrick drove the sheep away perfectly'satisfied in his own mind that he had the full number; drove them through a, river to his farm, and did not count them. He left the count till •four weeks and two days later, without the -slightest; idea that there had been a mistake, and then v he made his count, and discovered the sheep were shorthand arrived at the conclusion ffiat a mistake had been made. In the meantime, however, a possible explanation was that the sheep had strayed. V The* next point was the conversation between Mr Garrick and Mr Allan, and as counsel for defendants had remarked, there was; always some .doubt as to what people said a considerable time previously. As to there being 1600 sheep on the estate, it was on record that there were some hundreds more, so any inference made from that was not absolute at all. 'The 1600 sheep, as he understood the case, referred to sheep in the two paddocks,' and the company had other sheep of • the same class on the estate, in an adjoining paddock.' It appeared to him that though a mistake in counting might be a possible explanation, it had not been proved ■that there was any mistake, and the matter was open to no other construction. Under these circumstances he did not think the Court was justified in coming to any! other conclusion than thati the, whole loss must be charged to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had failed to prove the case, therefore judgment must go for defendant. The Court then rose. ,