THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16156, 9 March 1918, Page 6

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS. (Bct'-rc hi* Honour Mr .Justice He: clman.t f" V R FI'"A 11-I'<■ v. Fl" BLiC T R I' ST E E ' AND OTHEIIt:. HU Honour delivered reserved judgment m il-o 0,0 ol JoMi.!]i Carpenter v. ih- Public Trustee, \S tllu.m Thoni.i» Hunt. Alfred Ke!vn ? o England, and Chsirlf". Samuel :in appeal lonia intiff from lite decision ot the MagisMtiii's at UiH>-U-i'ireh. It arose .Hit of a ''Uiiiti fd' done bv appellant on boha;f ot Hunt. On October 17th. 1017. appellant gave notice to the Fuiili- Tru-tci' under the \\ages I'roiion and Ommotors Liens At, K'GB, of his intention to claim a charg l on Vlie money- pay able by the Ftib.i" TruMeo to Hunt in respect ol the work, and all other reijuwite n;>i..c-:-» ivc.t .riven Jinnt assigned hi'- u-caic 10 s;es-.j, England and McCully a* trustee* lor hU creditots. The Magistrate, attci* ln>niin ,T evidence, gave judgment m favour o! the Public Trustee, holding that as appellant's notice of charge had not been given "within thirty days ot the conip ecion ol the work. he wa-s not en V. I led to succeed. '1 he quest ion was whether the thirty days fixed by Section -VJ of the Wages Protection and ( on tra't ot s Lieu Act. lfjll, in this (:;ise commenced to run Irom Augti ; i h KM 7. when the work was believed to have been finished, or from October 13th. 1017. when a defect, discovered wps repaired and the work was. in faj't. com pie led ill terms <,f the contract. But lor Srction I of the Wages Protection and Contractors' Lien Amendment Act, Kill, the matter, hi l - Honour Mid, would lie beyond dispute. After going ini-» the legislation on the s.uh.tort. Ins lionouv decidc.-l that (he work under tinfontrart was not completed until Oeto- | her l:»h. 10J7. and that the notice I served on the Public Trustee IJ7th. 1-n 7. wns in lime. The appeal would be allowed with costs. ! Mr T. A. Murphy .irr.-pt.-wj judgment. ! on behalf of appellant and Mr 11. B. I \\ aid for respondents. in r..\>;co. mtli.er v. union* steam shtp COMPANY. Sitting in Hanco, his Honour heard a motion to •ettlo costs in tho case of I Miller v. the Union Steam .Ship Company. The case was the one heard recently when a water>id? worker was awarded £2oo'J 10s damages for injuries received in falling down a hold of the Tarawera. .Miller died soon after the conclusion of the action. Later, the case was taken to t.ho Court of Appeal. n.nd tho damages awarded were limited to £-50.1, ou the ground that the negligence to which the aofide.nt was due wa.<- tint of a fellow-servant. Mr S. G. .Raymond. K.C.. with him Mr Hunt, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Reswick for the defendant company. Mr Reswick said that the defendant company, prior to the hearing of the action, ii ad claimed that the amount was limited to ioOO. and _ had paid that, amount "into court. Tito Appeal Court, had held as the defendant company had claimed, which had practically amounted to ti verdict for the company. The company had been granted co*ts on tho highest scale on the appeal, and the company now claimed the whole costs of the action, on the grotinl thst when the full amount claimed was paid into court no costs could be obtained by a plaintiff. Mr Raymond, in claiming costs for tlie plaintiff, submitted Inat "thorp had boon no objection taken to the findings ot the jury. Tho Court, of Appeal had merely held t.hat t.ho plaintiff's remedy at common law was limited to The company in paying that suni had meroly claimed liability, and did not claim* the limit under tho Workers' Compensation Act. Moreover, certain of the issues raised by the defenco had failed. After hearing lengthy argument, his. Honour intimated that ho would consider his decision. AX APPEAL. An appeal against the decision of Mr T. A. 13. Bailey, 1 S.M., was lodged in the cr-se of the North Canterbury Sheepowners' Co-oporative Export and Agency Company, Limited (Mr F. Wilding. K.C., with him, Mr Rowe) against Francis Scott Rutherford (Mr Donnelly, with him Mr J. H. Williams). Tho claim was one for calls on certain shares which the plaintiff company alleged the defendant had taken out m the company, but the Magistrate held that Rutheriford had not entered into a binding contract to take shares and accordingly found in hiss favour. One of the chief grounds of the defence was that defendant when agreeing to take shares had understood that a freezing works was to be established at Waipara, but. it had subsequently been built in a different place altogether. _ Mr "Wilding submitted that in practically taking it upon himself to rectify tho register of the company, tho Magistrate had assumed an authority which he did not possess. The only body that could alter tho status of a member of a limited company was the Court mentioned in the Companies Act. Further. Mr Wilding contended, the view tho Magistrate nnd taken, that there had been a departure from the objects of tho company as stated in the rough prospectus bv the amended prospectus, issued later, and the memorandum of association, thus entitling Rutherford to withdraw, was not sound according to either the documents cr the evidence. There had, counsel contended, been a valid contract entered into by Rutherford to take shares. Thero had been no material discrepancy between- the objects of the rough prospectus and thoso of the second one, and. in any case, the defendant was concerned with nothing but t.ho former. His Honour held that there had been a contract between the defendant and the plaintiff company, and that the defendant. was liable to pay the calls. There might also be a question whether, owing to the. long delay, the defendant might now be debarred from rescinding his contract, but, that -was a question which his Honour' was not called on to decide. Tho appeal would be allowed with JL'o 5s costs. MAGISTERIAL. (Beforo Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS." Daniel Hagerty, a second offender, was fined 20s, in default seven days' imprisonment, for having been drunk oil the railway station. Robert FalInon. who had been found, helplessly drunk, was remanded for a week for medical treatment. BY-LAW BREACHES. Evelyn Lilley was fined 10s and costs for cycling at night without a light. For motoring at an excessive speed, John Boag; William Downer, and Arthur J. were each fined 10s and costs. i rederick Hookham (Mr Sargent), charged with reckless and negligent mot:ring, had the case against him dismissed. ASHBURTON. (Before Mr V. G. Day S.M.) Hilda Edith Parish applied for maintenance and separation orders i against her husband, also the guardianship of'their four children. The case was adjourned for a month in order that an amicable agreement might be arrived at. Ou charges of failing to eradicate Cajifornian thistle. Percy McGowan (Hinds) and Alexander Davidson (Eiffelton) were each fined 30s and costs: _ Alexander Wilson (Wakanui). 40s r.nd costs; .John Tulley (Tinwald). .John Geddings (Tiuwald). and David Fitzgerald (Wakanui). each 20s and costs. l<awreuc£ J. Fecimey (Mr Kennedy};

charged with failing to destroy rabbits on Tii.> propcrtv at Westcrfield. was fined and costs. Edward Dunn, ies:ding at Hampste.id, was charged with keeping liquor, to wit. wine, for sale in the nolicense distiict- of Ashburton, also wit.ii sollin* wine to John Millar and John McKav Sergeant Ryan prosecute, and Mr Acland appeared for defendant, who'pleaded guilty. The sergeant stitcd that there were 12 casks, samples of which he look and submittcJ to the Government Analyst (Mr A. A. Bickerton;. who stated that the samples contained from o per cent, to S nor cent, of alcohol. The Magistrate *aid there was nothing to show that defendant was in the habit- of filing, but on the charge of selling to Mcivay a tine of ~10 would he imposed, there was no suggestion that defendant kept liquor for'sale. The other charge? were dismissed.