MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5551, 24 February 1886, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

♦ MAGISTRATE'S COURT. CHEISTCHTJRCH. This Dat. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Defaults. — In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs, in consequence of defendants' default of nonappearance : — Wynn-Williams and Deacon v. Harper, claim £G 12s ; Stubberfield v. Coupland, claim £1 18s lOd ; Forward and Co. t. Lye, claim 15s; Borlowski v, Goodyer, claim JEI Is ; Cohen v. Jackson, claim 8s 6eL HINTON V. LANDERGAN AND LANDEBGAN, claim J&8 3s 10d, and Nelson v. same, claim £Vl 8s 3d. Mr Martin for plaintiffs ; Mr Stringer for defendants. These two cases were, by consent of. learned counsel and the Bench, heard together. The claims were made in respect of damage caused by a fire which originated upon, and^spread from, defendant's farm at Templeton to the farms of plaintiffs and others adjoining, in December last. The facts were set out in our report of the : previous case of Robinson v. Landergan, in which judgment had been giv'en for plaintiff. A young man named Blackwood had made a fire of gorse grubbings on a road close to Landergan' s fence, and a hot nor'-wester had done the rest of the mischief. The defendants had denied that Blackwood was actually in their employment at the time, but the evidence had been conclusive to the satisfaction of the Bench that he was so employed. Mr Stringer now said that although his clients denied that Blackwood was employed by them, he could not i* the face of the evidence in the former case contend with any cbance of success that he was not in their service. It was also admitted that it was customary for farmers to burn gorse after stubbing it. Mr Martin called the Surveyor to the Templeton Road Board, and two other witnesses, who stated that the amount of damages claimed was reasonable in each case. Hinton had had forty and a half chains of fencing, and six acres of grass destroyed. Nelson, forty-one chains of fencing, two acres of grass, two acres of peas, and half acre of wheat. For the defence, Mr Moorhead estimated the loss at £4> 03 in Hinton's case, and £6 8s in Nelson's. Mr Stringer addressed the Court on the law of the cane, and said that there was one point that had not been taken hitherto, viz., that it was quite illegal to burn gorse on a public road according to "The Police Offenceß Act, 1885," and 'The Public Works Act, 1882," and therefore it could not be said to be within the scope of Blackwood's employment to light the fire. It was a breach of statute law, for which Blackwood himself was responsible. Mr Martin replied that the Public Works Act provided that gorse might be burnt on a public road by permission of a Road Board, and it was not shown that Blackwood had not this authority ; therefore the Court would presume that he had, because the presumption in law is that a man is always acting rightly until the contrary is shown. His Worship said the point raised by Mr Stringer was an extremely nice one, but it was one that had better be taken to the Supreme Court. He saw nothing to induce him to alter his previous opinion as to defendant's liability, and as ho considered the amount of damages claimed was reasonable, judgment would be given for plaintiff in each case for the amount claimed with costs, which, for the two cases, amounted to JBIB odd. Miscellaneous. — Dailey v. Jeffree, claim .£ll for work done on a farm. Mr Corr for plaintiff ; Mr Thomas for defendant. The defendant was a farmer at Ellesmere, and plaintiff had been working for him and living in a hut. A set-off was put in for rent of the hut and firewood. Defendant admitted owing £& 9s, and judgment was given for this amount, the set-off being disallowed. — Innes and Co. v. Swan, claim £2 10s for beer supplied. Defendant denied having ordered the beer, and disputed the signature to the delivery notes. Plaintiff had no proof available and judgment was given for defendant with co9ts.— Trent Bros. v. Beaumelberg, claim £2 133 7d for cash advanced, &c. ; judgment for plaintiff with costs. — Beaumelberg v. Chamberlain was adjourned to Feb. 25.