MAGISTERIAL

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13953, 13 July 1909, Page 7

MAGISTERIAL

TMARU-sJULY 12th, I'JU'J. „. (Before Mr V. G. Day, S.M".) : DRUNKENNESS. A first offender for drunkenness, who did not 'appear, was fined.ss or in default" 24 hours' imprisonment. - ; A statutory' first offender-'*as convieted and discharged on -Lis applying for a prohibition order to be taken out against himself. John Owen pleaded guiUy to Wing drunk in NortlL Street on"SaturdavT Tlie man bad. been .before the Court several times witlihi' the past three montlis, and'was liable to Ik> treated as an habitual- drunkard'. His Worship said ho-would give him one more ctinnce, and- convict ami order him 'to come up 'for sentence when' called ■upon, h\*l if he appeared in the Court again he would be sent to Pakaioa for/two Tears.. CLAIM. FOR WAGES. • Martin Carroll sued TitDothv Connolly for £l2 2s fi-I, which he claimed as-the balance of wages due to him fr«-wrk-vlomv for the defendant,who is the prnnrietor of the .' Dniicastcr hotel. Wnslidyko. Mr appeared for the plain tiff and Mr' J«h"»nsen for the d-fondant. .!-'/i ;Tlie plaintiff gave evidence in support r>{ his claim, and the- defendant arid his wffr its dnfonre. pr"'luciti\£,an account book w lri»b was alleged to contain a record of. *be trnii>no'iir>.".i with pl.--i-.tiff, but whi-b Mr Erir'ie ! suggested had been written up for the '>"'-.. ss '/■ tU " w- . -"■'..'.-". His Worship <-nve i"ud"~icnrr for plaintiff for £."> 12s 6d and r«=ts.'-'' " GORMLEY V. MATTHEWS. Legal argument iu the civil case, in whicn Pali ick Gormley sues Juaepji Matthews tor a sum t.i jL-siJU, as da.u3g.es, on tlis grouuds that Matthews m;itetl the brothers Chisholm to assault, hiui, was heard. Air J. \».' unite appeared for the pluintnf, aiid .- Air humio for defeudaut. --rj 'tiounsel for tUe defence first detailed the; facts -of the case iioint by point, and said it was admitted that*the defendant had .not committed the ussat.it,.aiid it.was only alleged that he h:ul -incited -the brothers Chisholm to commit an-assault. He contended that the jues-tioii-of liability in civil and criminal cases was entirely different. An aider: and abettor or inciter, iii a criminal case could be indicted as a principal and brought in equally guilty with the person or-persons who actually committed the assault, but he submitted it was not so in a civil case.- The plaintiff" Lad not proved by any evidence that there had been any previous arrangipm'ent- between the defendant and the brothers Chisholm, in which the latter were to act as defendant's agents or { servants and even if that "had been 1 the case and the Chisholms had been \ deemed to be created Matthews' ser- j vants for the purpose of helping him , to' release Lis cattle, and had malici-; ously exceeded his instructions by at-. tacking Gormley, then neither would the defendant be liable under these circumstances. He pointed out that His Worship must not be unduly swayed by the verdict in the higher Court against the Chisholms for evidence had been since adduced that was not .known, and called at that trial. He alluded to the evidence given by Brydou, Lee and Murphy, which ot it had been brought forward might have put a different complexion on the case. He submitted that in view of the facts that had been elicited as to the work done by Gormley soon after the alleged assault, that the damage he could have sustained must have been very slight, ile suggested that elated by the success.of the previous action, Gormley was bringing the present case against his client, as he thought he could make a bit of money out of it. ' ... Mr J. W. White contended that in this case an assault had been committed by common design, and though.it might not have been arranged any length of time .beforehand, yet all parties were civilly liable, and were principals, even if they had not actually taken part in the assault, bnt men ly iii"ited or abett"d. Counsel.minted several cases and authorities to bear out his arguments, and submitted that if His Worship was satisfied that Matthews Lad urged or incited the Cliisholius ;to commit' an assault, then he was equally liable civilly. Eegarding the .question of damages, monetary compensation was the only redress possible, and ho wonld ask His Worship to take into consideration the severe ininries which it was proved the plaintiff had incurred. He submitted that tbo "damages asked for were very moderate and the only reason why £4OO or • £3OO had not been asked for was I the extra expenso that would h n in- j ciirred in having the case heard be- j fore the Supreme Court. HLs Worship reserved his decision.