MAGISTERIAL

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 11593, 31 October 1901, Page 4

MAGISTERIAL

TBIARU—WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30th, 190 L

(Beforei Mr C. A. Wray, S.M.)

CIVIL CASES.

Judgment by default was given in Mrs Morrison v. A. McPherson, claim £1 15s 9d, arrears of rent (Mr Raymond for plaintiff); Driscoll v. Sullivan, claim £l2 13s (Mr Mendelson for plaintiff) ; W. Penrose v. J. Scott, claim £2 9s 4d. W. Penrose v.. Barker, claim £1 10s> for bicycle tyre and tube supplied. Plaintiff gave evidence that he could not prove that the goods had been delivered, but the entry had been made in his books charging the defendant. Defendant gave evidence denying that he had ever purchased or received a tyre and tube from plaintiff. Had received account, but had told plaintiff's collector that he denied receiving the goods. Plaintiff was non-suited, owing to lack of proof that delivery was made. Shewan v. T. Annesley, claim £ll9s 6d, judgment summons. Defendant did not appear, and after hearing plaintiff, an order was made for the pavment of the amount forthwith, in default 14 days' imprisonment. The adjourned case, W. J. Black v. J. Lillico, claim £5 18s for loss sustained through horses having been turned loose on Wai-iti ioad by defendant, was discontinued.

ACTION FOR DAMAGES. F. Simmons (horse owner) v. Fleming Bros, (traction engine owners), claim £44 2s, damages caused by defendants' alleged negligence on October sth. in not stopping their traction engine when called upon to do so, whereby the carriage stallion Agamemnon was injured and thrown out of service for one week. Mr Raymond appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Rolleston for defendants. This case was heard at Geraldine on Tuesday, 22nd inst., and His Worship gave his decision yesterday. His Worship neld that, though there had been some damage sustained, it had been very slight. The plaintiffs evidence was not sufficient to show that any serious injury had been done. Considering the nature of traction engine traffic, the law requires persons having ■ charge of engines to exercise not only care, but diligence. Negligence was denied by the defendants, who showed that they could not stop in the position they were in, but It was also showed that they could have done more thart they did. The driver was supposed to have two men on the engine, to help in the look-out and also render assistance to vehicles passing, if necessary. This the defendants neglected to do, and seemed to have acted somewhat aggressively. There was some question about lettingoff steam, and though that was contradicted, several witnesses declared that steam was let off right on the horses. He (His Worship) was quite satisfied that the defendants had not exercised the care they should have done, and had any serious accident occurred they would have been held liable. As it was, "he considered therewas only a slight accident, and the plaintiff did' not suffer very much. Damages were fixed at £2, and judgment was given for ( that amount, with costs.