RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXII, Issue 2586, 19 November 1867, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

j Monday, November 18. [Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.] DRUNKENNESS. Edward Dunn was, at tho instance of Police Sergeant Crowder, convicted of drunkenness, and fined 5s and costs, or in default, 24, hours' imprisonment with hard labor. SUSPICION OV BOBBERY. William Weoks was brought up on remand on suspicion of being implicated in a robbery committed at Castle Point, but Police Sergeant Monaghan having informed his Worship that there was no further evidence against the prisoner, the latter was discharged from custody. ASSAULT. Robert Smith was brought up on remand to answer tho charge of assaulting George Dixon. Mr Buckley conducted plaintiff's caso ; and Mr Borlase appeared for defendant. Georgo Dixon, an appretico to Mr Smith, Ben, stated that on Tuesday morning last he was engaged in making some hooks for Mr McLean iv the manner in which ho had been accustomed to do. Defendant objected to the mode in which he was executing tho work, took the tongs out of his hand, straightened the hook, and said he would kick complainant. He afterwards hustled him out of the shop, and while doing so, struck him with his fist in the mouth. Defendant had been in the habit of threatening him. Once ho threatened to throw a hammer at his head, at another time a cWsel. Cross-examined : Witnoss had not previously been rebuked for not making tho hooks round. Ho had been told to make the hooks round, and insisted upon making them in anothor way. He' did not remember having refused to do whlit he was told. Witness wus not saucy on Tuesday. After defendant hit him, ho told defendant that he was a coward. Witness did not know why defendant had thrown tho hammer at him. Re-examined : Witness on Tuesday made the hooks as ho had mado hooks befoge. By the Court : The hooks that plaintiff had made before were refused by the person who ordered them, because the plates had been wrongly mado. William Tustin, uncle to complainant, deposed that he had seen complainant after the assault had been committed, and his face was very badly swollen ; aud detailed a long and interesting conversation, liberally garnished with ndjeetives, which had taken placo between himself and defendant relative to tho assault, and tho purport of which was that the latter had refused him any satisfaction.

John Walker stated that ho knew complainant, and had always found him an industrious and civil lad. ,

Mr Borlase, for tho defence, stated that the defendant was his father's foreman, and complainant was therefore under his control, and bound to obey his orders. This complainant refused to do on the morning when tho alleged assault took place, and defendant put him out of tho shop. While doing so, ho unintentionally struck him a blow ; but oven had he purposoly hit him, ho was justified in doing so by tho law of master and apprentice. Mr Borlase then called the following witnesses : — John Smith, brother of tho defendant, who was present in the shop at the time when the assault was committed, stated that complainant was ordered to make the hooks in a certain manner, but persisted in doing them his own way. Defendant took tho tongs and hook and showed him how to do it ; and complainant having let fall some saucy remarks, defendant took him by tho arm to give him a shove, whereupon complainant "squared-off" at him. There was a bit of a scuffle, and complainant was pushod out of tho shop. His Worship said it was to be regretted tho case had ever come before the Court, but as the evidence seemed to show that an assault had been committed, ho must bind tho defendant over to keep the peaco, in his own recognizances for £10, further costs being remitted.

CIVIL. Robert Somervillo v William Mantell — £5 8s 7d. Withdrawn. E. Oahill vC. Enderby— £B 19s 3d, for wages duo to plaintiff's son. The ovidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff was to the effect that defondant had engaged his son to work for him at 5s a week, and the latter did so for a considerable time, and then ran away. Defendant had sevorai times promised to pay the money, but had failed to do so. Mr Enderby, in defence, stated that he had hired the boy for twelve months, and that the latter was to bo "paid a cow for his services during that time. The boy, however, decamped

before the expiration of the year, whereupon plaintiff sent another of his sons to work out tho remainder of the time, but this youngster also, having engaged in a conflict with another youth, in which he camo off second best, likewise departed without beat of drum. The plaintiff, in ; his bill, had sot down a longer period than the ' boy actually workod. The Court gave judgment for the plaintiff for tho amount claimed and costs. E. W. Goodall v A. Read— £2o. Judgment was given in tins caso as follows : — This is an action brought against a bailee for hire for loss sustained to the goods in question. The law of tho case I hold to be as follows :— A bailee for hire is bound to take all reasonable care of the goods committed to his charge. If he does this, he cannot be held responsible for loss. In the present ease, it is shown by the evidence of defendant, corroborated by the stewardess, that tho plaintiff ordered her box to bo taken to .the convont by defendant ; that ho took it there on tho following morning ; that he was informed that 1 plaintiff was not in the convent, and he could not get his charge paid for carriage. He then leaves a memorandum, stating where he may bo found, and takos tho box to the neighborhood of the j wharf, where it is received into the free store, j As far as the evidence has gone, there may bo a f doubt as to whether or not. tho defendant should have seen tho box safely inside tho walls of the frGo store. He, however, swears he gave it in charge to one of tho officials. After weighing the whole of the evidonce, I am of opinion that the defendant exercised reasonable care, and therefore enter a nonsuit. G. Kilsby v G. E. Squires— £ll l9s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs. S. Woodward v J Chew — £7 10s, for rates. Adjourned until to-morrow. Same vJ. Whittem— £7 10s, for rates. Adjourned until to-morrow. THE DEEUNCT "ADVERTISER."

F. McCarthy v E. Bull— £2o. His Worship gave judgment in this case as follows : — After duly considering tho cases which bear upon this question, I am of opinion that tho liability of tho defendant cannot be extinguished unless it can be shown that there was a communication between all the parties, and an express agreement by tho plaintiff to accept a third party as his debtor (Nelson v Coupland, Caxon vChadley, Wharton v Walker). Now, although the plaintiff in the present case expressed himself as perfectly willing to receive the money due by defendant from Parsons or any one else, yet he does not appear ever to have come under any agreement to relieve the defendant from his liability. Nor does the evidence given by the defendant, Bull, bear out a proof of tho necessary agreement to ensure his defence. Tho utmost that ho assorts is that after meeting plaintiff at Mr Brandon's office he left him under a distinct understanding that he would withdraw an action then ponding in the District Court, -and also that he accepted Parsons' liability. The first statement is insufficient in itself for the defence, besides being denied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff always allows that he was willing to accept payment from Parsons, but denies that he released Bull's liability. Judgment must therefore be given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs.

Mr Buckloy gave notice of appeal.