CIVIL CASES. The Corporation Rates.

West Coast Times, Issue 662, 7 November 1867, Page 2

CIVIL CASES. The Corporation Rates.

CLAYTO2T V. KLEIN. In this case judgment had been reserved from theprevious day. His Worship — In this case judgment will be for the plaintiff for the full amount 1 claimed. 1 Mr Rees, for defendant — As this case is under L2O, "would your Worship be ! good enough to grant an appeal ? [ His Worship — On what grounds, Mr Eees ? Mr Rees— On the ground that the pre- . sent Corporation cannot recover the rates, the snbject of this action having no property therein — the rite having been struck • under an old Act, which has been repealed. Your Worship will see that the appeal is entirely on a point of law. 1 His Worship — Have you any objection to urge to this, Mr Harvey ? Mr Harvey — No, your Worship ; but I , should like to bo furnished with the • grounds of appeal, in writing, as soon as possible. Mr Reos — I will put them into writing, and will furnish my learned friend with a copy. His Worship — I will grant the appeal. 1 Hall and Bock v. Daw. — This case was 1 adjourned from the sth inst. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff, for 1 L 5 18s 9d. Byron aud others v. Angus. — Plaintiff sought to recover the sum of LB, amount paid for goods returned : promised to be repaid under agreement. Mr South for the plaintiff, Mr Eees for the defendant. For the plaintiffs it was shown that they purchased goods to the value of L 8 from the defendant's shopman, and as the plaintiffs were about leaving by the Tasnianian Maid, for Jackson's Bay, it waa stipulated that tho goods should be placed on board the steamer before she left ; if the steamer left without the goods the plaintiffs were to return them. The arrangement was come to before the goods were purchased, and before any money passed between them. The goods were sent down in an '• oxpress, but arrived too late ; the steamer had swung off into the stream. The goods were taken back into -the store. It was afterwards agreed that if the Bruce sailed for Jackson's Bay on the following day they should take the goods, but as it was afterwards ascertained, the Bruce did not go further than Okarita, the plaintiffs applied to the defendant to refund the money, which he had refused to do. Mr Rees moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the shopman had no power to bind his' principal in a contract of that nature. That no consideration for the promise of the shopman had been shown, and that a new contract had been made. Mr South replied on the nonsuit point. His Worship refused the nonsuit points, and requested Mr Eees to proceed with his defence. For the defendant it waa contended that sufficient time elapsed after the plaintiffs had purchased the goods to admit of their being placed on board the steamer. Mr Angus stated that the conveyance stood in the street outside his store from seven to ten minutes after the plaintiff had purchased the goods, and they had been placed in the " express." When the pldntiffa brought the goods back, they said they would take them down in the Bruce on the following day. It was not till the day after that they spoke about the arrangement they had come to with his shopman. They brought the goods back and left them in his store, where they have been ever since. He had not examined the box that was supposed to contain them. He had stored the goods at tho plaintiffs' risk. Mr Eees called the driver of the " express, 1 ' but he differed in opinion with Mr Angus as to the time the " express" stood outside his store after the goods had been placed in it. The witness said he left at once with the goods. His Worship b&y» judgment lor the amount claim*!. If th«

plaintiffs had not returned the whole of tho goods the defendant had his remedy. Lyons v. Alman.— Plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant the sum of L2O for damages sustained by his son, Thomas Lyons, through defendant's dog bating him. Mr Rees for the plaintiff. Ifca? Harvey for the defendant. Mr Rees £ applied to amend the bill of particulars — - to sue in the name of the son instead of that of the father— Patrick Lyons. The billof particulars was accordiugly amended. The dog it appeared was not the property of the defendant. It belonged to a person named Barrett. Mr Rees b fought nia action under section IV of " The injury by Dog 3 Act, 1865," which runs as follows: — "The occupier of any house or place or premises in which any dog which has injured or occasioned any injury as aforesaid to any sheep or cattle Or person or property has been usually kept or permitted to live or remain at the time of such injury shall be liable as the owner of such dog unless the occupier can prove that he vr&s not the owner of such dog at tho time the injury complained of wos committed, and that such dog was kept, or permitted to live or remain in the said house, or place, or premises without his sanction or knowledge." — The evidence adduced by the plaintiff went to show that the dog. which was a very fierce animal, rushed out at the boy and bit him, as lie was playing on the beach, at the back of the defendant's premises, on Friday, the 25 eh of October last. She retained hold of the boy's leg for about a minute, till beaten off by some of the persons who gathered round. She then ran off into a stable at the back of defendant's store. The boy was conveyed home, and kept his bed for eight or nine days. The dog was afterwards shown _to the boy, and identified by him. The ."evidence of Dr Rossetti was taken. He stated that the boy was suffering "from four lacerated wounds on the left leg; one- was slight, the other three were serious. The boy would be all right again in a fortnight. — For the defence, Mr Alman stated that he was not aware till the Sunday that the dog was in the stable. Ho was then informed that it had lolled one of his fowls. The stable had not been used for the last three or four weeks, and the door could not be closed in consequer.ee of the sand which had been washed up. The dog had thus succeeded in getting into the stable and pupped there. He was surprised when the boy's father came into his store on the Monday and informed him of what had occurred. Ho told him* that he did not own the dog, and that it was only on the day previous (Sunday) he had been told that the dog was in the stable. — His Worship here stated that it was useless proceeding with the case after heariDg the defendant's evidence, he could not possibly give the pla ; ntiff a judgment. Judgment was, therefore, given for the defendant, with costs. — His Worship afterwards disposed of one or two other unimportant cases. The Court was then adjourned till eleven o'clock on the following day.