CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 458, 17 March 1909, Page 2

CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.) . . UNDEFENDED CASES. ■ Judgment by default was given by Dr. M'Arthur in the following undefended civil cases:— James Henry Pcdder v. Harry Crump, Xl 4 7s. 6d., with costs XI 10s. 6d.; Georgo Thomas Harris, senior, v. William Reid Andrews, .€l3 4s. 3d., with costs XI 10s. Gd.; John -Henry Leevers v. B. AV. Munns, XG fis., with costs XI 3s. 6t1.; Knos Gilmer y. C. E. Bezar, £1 55., with costs 10s.; Empire Loan and Discount Co., Ltd., v. AV. J. O'Neill, X 23 135., with costs £2 Us.; Drivers' Union v. Robert Brooks, XI 35., with costs as.; same v. Herbert Furness, .£1 35., with costs 55.; same v. Alexander Goueh, .£1 35., with costs 55.; sanio v. Georgo Gardiner, £1 Is., with costs 55.; same v. Herbert Hill, £1 35., with costs 55.; same v. Thomas Lane, XI 35., with costs 55.; same v. Charles Lewis, XI 35., with costs'ss.; same v. John Lowe, XI 35., with costs 55.; samo v. William M'Guire, XI 35., with costs 55.; samo v. Edwin Jl'Guirc, XI 35., with costs 55.; samo v. David M'Laughlan, XI 35., with costs 55.; samo v. Charles Pye, XI 35., with costs 55.; samo v. John Prince, XI 35., with costs 55.; samo v. H. Simpson, XI 35., with costs 55.; same v. Alfred Townsend, XI 35., with costs 55.; same v. Charles .Whelan, XI 35., with costs 55.; Dominion Mercantile Agency v. Montague Spotswood, XI 135 , . 6d., with costs 55.; samo v. Augustus Colemnn, £i 7s. Cd., with costs 10s.; samo v. John Georgo Bay, XI 175.,-with costs 75.; same v. Moutagie Spotswood, X 3 os. 9d., with costs 10s.; City Printing Co. v. Moss C. Symons, X 5 155., with costs lGs.; James Smith and Sons v. Eugene M'Carthy, XI os. 2d., with costs 55.; samo v. Peter Hansen, X 3 ss. 5d., with costs 55.; Henry Osborne v. James Poole, Xα 7s. Gd., with costs 18s. 6d.; Samuel Brown, Ltd., v. A. A. M. Rice, X 3 18s. 5d., ■ with costs 135.; James Smith and Sons v. Elizabeth • Cripps, XI lGs., with costs 55.; Joseph Nathan and Co., Ltd., v. Matthew Adams, X 49 11s. 2d., with costo. X 3 10s. Gd.; City Corporation v. AVilliam Garnham, Xl 2 10s. 7d., with costs 155.; same v. Annie Clark, X 5 10s. 9d., with costs 10s.; samo v. Catherine Bresnan, Xll 2s. 10d., with costs 155.; .Standidge and Co. v. AV. B. Cahill, XI Bs. 9d., with costs ss. In the judgment summons caso. H. Price and Co. v. Joseph A'ndrews, claim for' XI 9s. 5d., debtor was ordered to pay on or before March 30, in default 18 hours' imprisonment. In the following cases no orders were made:—Ann May Stevenson v. AVilliam Lapworth, claim for Xl 5 15s. Gd.; Ethel Miller v. Dullio Pecehi, X 2; Alfred E. Meatyard v. James S. Middleton, £3 12s. 10d. (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) REFUNDING A DEPOSIT. - A claim for XlO was brought by Hans C. Lawson against Emily Weiss and Lingard and Co. The amount was a deposit paiit on tho fiurchase of the leasehold of premises in AVilis Street, cf which Emily Weiss was tho owner and Lingard and Co. were agents. Tho point was who should refund the deposit. Evidence was to the'effect that Emily Weiss had instructed Lingard and Co., together with other agents, to sell, but had given no written authority withdrawing the property from salo. Tho plaintiff had paid his deposit to Lingard and Co., but he was refused his titlo by defendant AYeiss. His Worship said th.it there was no doubt . that the deposit should bo repaid by Lingard and Co. Tho caso would be dismissed as against the defendant AVeiss, with costs (X 2 10s.) against Lingard and Co. Mr. llindmarsh appeared for plaintiff, Lawson, and Mr. Finding for defendant, Emily AVeiss. A BOUNDARY DISPUTE. i Proceedings were taken by Julius Adolph Lntz (Mr administrator in tho estate of Frances Sarah Lutz, against Charles Henry Jones, painter, of Mirainar, for £8 17s. tOd., half the cost of a fence erected between the properties of the litigants. A second claim was also brought for XS as damages for alleged wrongful removal of tho fence from the proper lino on to tho land of Frances Sarah Lutz. Defendant was represented by Mr. Nearc. In order to allow of evidence being called, the caso was adjourned to March 23 16 _ CYCLE DEALER'S ACCOUNTS. Tho Scott Motor and Cycle Co., Ltd., claimed 1 to recover the sum of X 156 13s. 3d. from Harold Sinclair, cycle dealer, Masterlon. being the balance due tor goods sold and delivered, together with interest on the amount of (ho account owing sinco May 1. 1807. The liability for the price of tho goods was admitted by ( defendant, but. ho denied that there wns any agreement to pay interest on the account. The claim for interest was based upon an arrangement made in August, 1907, whereby plaintiff W7 aureed lo give, a rebate and reiuEß tha urices

of tho cycles on condition that, interest was paid from time to limn. The defendant averred that Ho had not agreed to [iay interest. The amount of interest claimed was .tGI ss. 3d. Judgment was reserved - until March 23. UNION CLAIMS FOR AHIiEARS. Tho Drivers' Union sued W. .T. King for 23s ai-renrs of subscription due to the union. Defendant was under tho impression that he was not liable for subscription for the first six months. His Worship gave judgment for the union for 18s., and costs Gs. Tho Plasterers' Union, represented by Air. I;evvey, brought a claim for 17s. lid. arrears of subscription duo by Lawrence Jacobs Judgment was for plaintiffs for the amount claimed and costs 63 (Beforo Mr W. G. Ridilell, S.M.) A DAMAGED BICYCLE. A claim for -£5 damages done to a bicycle was brought by John Hall Flockton, second-hand dealer, against Jacob Geango, earner, Upper Hutt. According to evidence the damage was done by defendant's express, which knocked over ami smashed plaintiff's bicycle, which was standing against a lamp-post in Manners Street. After hearing evidence, his Worship said that to secure damages plaintiff must show that there had been no negligence on his part and that defendant had omitted to take proper precautions. If there were contributory neghgenco on the part of plaintiff part damages might be recovered. In this case defendant had taken all reasonable precautions to avoid an accident, and plaintiff had been negligent. Judgment would therefore be for defendant, with M 13s. costs. THEATRICAL ROYALTIES. W. N. Tilson sued N. E. Aitken, Herbert E. Townsend, and Walter H. Dedill for JCS, balance due on an amount agreed to be paid as royalty for four performances of the comedy, Ihe Guv'nor." Tho performances were given in September, 1908, at Mastcrton, Palmerston North, Dannovirke, and Otaki. Mr. Gray, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated thai- defendants had made an agreement with Mr. Bert Royle, agent for Tilson, to pay £b for each performance. The comedy was copyrighted in England in ISSO, and the copyright still held good in New Zealand. While defendants were engaged on the tour they camo across a book of the comedy, in which it was stated that tho sum to bo paid for each performance by amateurs was £2 3s. In evidence, Norm in E. Aitken, one of the defendants, stated that when he made the ngreemont in regard to tho £5 royalty he understood that Mr. Roylo was acting on,behalf of J. C. Williamson. He did not know at the time that Tilso,i had anything to do with the nutter at all. His Worship, in delivering judgment, said that defendants might have made a better bargain, but that was their own business. Tho fact that tho usual royilty was JC3 3s. could rot override tho agreement made with Mr. Rovle. Judgment would therefore bo for plaintiff, with costs £1 18s. A MATTER OP COMMISSION. Half commission on a sale of land was the claim made by Donald Graham from Archibald E. l'earce. The litigants, who had formerly been in partnership, had separated, and a clause in the dissolving agreement had stated that plaintiff should receive half tho profits from commission on sales effected before tho partnership ceased to exist, when such profits were received and collected. The amount claimed was J3IG ss. The dissolving agreement was put in by Mr. Levvey, who appeared for plaintiff. For the defendant Mr. M Grath applied for a non-suit on the ground that all tho commission due had not been collected. After consideration of this point his Worship intimated that he would allow the non-suit, with JCI Is. costs. A NON-SUIT. A non-suit was also allowed in the case Nicol, Stringer, and Roberts, Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Dr. Cahill, claim for .£l3 2s. 5d., on the ground that the plaint note did not accurately describe plaintiffs. For defendant Mr. Blair contended that a company when in liquidation had no power to sue in its own name, it must sue through tli3 liquidator. This contention was upheld, and costs £1 Is. were allowed against plaintiffs. '\-MOu'NT:.Gboli- : EOLICEi-c6uEU '■ At the Mount Cook PoliV-e Court yesterday, befarr'Mrr-'l'hotivas Anderson, charged with insobriety, was fined 55., in default 24 hours' imprisonment. One first offender, similarly charged, was convicted and .discharged. ... . ■