MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 36, 6 November 1907, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

POLICE CASES.. v (Before Mr. .W-. G. Riddell, S:Mi) Five first-offending inebriates appeared at the Magistrates Court, yesterday morning. Three were convicted and fined 55., in uefault 24 hours' imprisonment,, and two were convicted and discharged. ' . x Wm. Benjamin Drury, charged with having failed to support his' illegitimate ,child, was defended .by Mr. Wilfoi'dp who asked; for a remand',' as defendant had been arrested in Ghristehurch, . and had only. /arrived that morning! A remand rintirNovember 8 wr granted, bail being allotved. in . self £10. aiii; one surety of £10. , : Martha M'Mqniis, alias appeared in'answer te a charge of;haying qii Noyember l.i at' Wellington', ' stolen . £4 18s. the property of.Wm'.O.' JArman. After.two witnesses- for the] prosecution' had; been .called the case was adjourned, until -this- morning. Bail was allowed in'self'£lo,'and'one surety of £10. Mr. P. Jackson appeared for the defence.: 7 ■ /

'Waka Waka Hepcre, a Maori labourer, charged with "aserious offence against a. girl at Manerhau, on October 24, was 'remanded to apppear 'at Otaki on November 7. Bail was allowed in the sum of' £100 and two sureties of £100; ' ; ..,

CIVIL BUSINESS, • (Before Dr. A. M* Arthur, S.M.j

Judgment was entered'- for plaintiff in the following civil "cases': —Harris and Van Staveren v. Douglas Sinclair, £79 12s. od., costs £4 9s. 6d.; O Began and JJ.ix v..Gerald IsherAvood, £3 35., costs 135.; . Stewart.. TimberJ Glass and Hardware Co., Ltd., v. David Muir,. £94 lis. 10d., costs, £1 135.; George Heiiry Morris v./ John Thomas Morgan;. £27 lGs .costs £2 lis.; E. H. Crease and' Son v.. Mrs. John Young, £6,155.<9d., : costs £1. 3s. Gd.; W. B. Apppleton v. 'Emily' Englardt, £4 os. 2d., costs 10s.; Kohn and Kohn v. Alfred Treves, £1' lis. ,6d., costs' 55.; Scott and Co. v., James/Williamson and Co;, £o 165., costs 15s. 6d. , 7 ' ' JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. ' In the judgment summons cases,', Chas.E. Young v. Chas. Gerald Eager, a debt of £12 7s. Bd., and James Holland, v. Margaret Hayes, a debt of £6 18s. \6d., debtors were ordered to pay on or before November 19, in default seven days 'imprisonment. No orders were made in the following cases:— James Thomas Hall v. Heiiry Mondy, a debt of £1 195,; Hunt and Co. v.- Wm. Holmes, - a debt of £3 Is.-; and Smith arid Smith,.. Ltd., V. W. Holmes, a debt 0f;£7.14s '.10d.

RESERVED JUDGMENT^

CONCERNING A RETAINING -WALL. . Reserved judgment in' tHe' case Jorgenson and Johann (Sir. Webb)'-v." E: J.vFalkner (Mr. Smith) was delivered by Dr. A. McArthur, S.M. Plaintiff claimcd to recover tho sum of £26 10s.- balanco diie for tho erection of a retaining wall on a section at Kclbourno. Del'ondant counter claimcd for £100 for damages, etc., alleging that the wall had given way and was now useless for tho purpose, for which it had boon ercctcd, viz., to' enablo thb section.to bo filled.in .' . ,

His Worship .held that there was no doubt that , tho wall succumbed shortly after 'it was erected. The Court could'findinothiiig in tho agreement.', botweon the'; parties to suggest that < the. wall was ' to rotain any particular •'woight ' of . filling bohind it, much less • any ■ woiglit above it.'- There was.no evidence-to ,sjiow tjiat the wall was not built' according te specification, and the whole agreement, between the parties-was te build a.wall according to specification. A contractor,' said his Worship; t did not usually undortake more than to doliver tho work complete with proper materials and workmanship, and in no way warranted that a work erected by him . would answer the purposo for which it was intended. Nor was lie in any way liable if it fell down tho day after acceptance, from defective design" or' plan, unless'tlioro was a' provision in the contract for maintenance. In the present case there Was no reference in the agreement to .the pressure to be sustained by the wall, or any provision for .maintenance.-. >The defendant gave- a promissory .note in settlement-of tho contract, and, in his Worship's opinion, lie

must be held-thereby to have acceptedTtho work.. The Court was aware that an -em-, ployer was in: no case .bound to pay; for, useless work, when there was a total failure 1 of consideration;'but his Worship-did not coii-. . sider that'tho work done was ÜBeless, • although it may not have been able to support the pressure brought-to bear on it. If-, the wall had'to sustain any pressure, that pressure should : have been , stated in the agreement. Judgment must be given -for plaintiff on tlieclaim for;£l6 10s., and.costs £4 125., also on the counter, claim, but without costs. " ' '

■ On the application of Mr. Smith, leave tc appeal was'granted. ■