CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 487, 21 April 1909, Page 11

CIVIL BUSINESS.

~ (Before Dr. A M'Arthur, S M ) , UNDEFENDED CASES. 1 Judgment for plaintiff.by default of dofen- :: Jant - was entered ; ■ in " the ; following : civjl : • cases:—Batesand.Lees v, -Wm. • k. ■ Read, ■ £l,Bs. 6d., costs 125.; Smith and Smith, Ltd.; ■ . v.: Win; Procter, £3 i:8s: " 3d., costs. 12a;: / . Dominion Mercantile Agency,-/'Assigneo of ; Frank Grady v.' Chas, Ernest Joseph Thompson, £2 195.-6 d.; costs 10s.;. Chas.Begg andCo., < Ltd.,-v.- Harold Oliver,- -,£l4'.4s:, costs : - £li ss. 6d.; D.I;C. v. Philip Prendergast, .: . £4 Os. lid., costa 10s. ;. Elias John Forbes v.- ' • 'Arthur John . 1 .Hayward, * £3, costs 10s.; 1 ... Dominion. Mercantile Agency,- assignee, and W. J. Montgomery v Bell Bros., £7 6s. lOd., < • costs £1 3s. 6d.'i Wellington City Council v. Frank Tonks, £9 2s, 2d., costs 85..; Arthur . Bolton v. Hugh Reid, £4 Bs. 7d.> costa 10s: ; ; Minister for Railways v. A. T. M'Williams, ; £2, oosts 55.; Abraham knd Williams, * Ltd-, v. George Godfroy Martin, £8 17s. 7d.; costs £1 3s. 6d.; A. H. Atkinson and Co., Ltd , v. . •- Herbert : 01iverWilton, • £20-;12s:, oosts £2 165.; Jones and Co. v. Wm. Aubrey, 15s Bd., .costs 55.-j Jas. Younger; v. Harry Gant-' '' y U ls -' ' "&•>»•'- George; H.VThorntoh ■ v. Walter Thomas Cotton, £17 8s 6d, costs £1103. 6d._ T . r , _ In the judgment..pummons- case .- : Times" Co.; Ltd., v. H Hurrell,'a debt of £1 15s. 9d. f .debtor; was ordered- to-pav on' or beforo May' 4/ m default' 7thre&V days' imprisonment. ;.. ;■ . . No orfer ; was ma4e. in the case.-Batos and Lees y. Louis, J..Forrest; a debtvof £3 19s 8d ; *1 DEFENDED CASES. 1 1 (Before Mr. W. G Riddell, S M.) CARTS IN COLLISION. , 1 Frederick William Meyer, baker, Brooklyn (Mr. sufcd.' J. ■- O'Brien, 'carrier. Wellington (Mr, W. H D Bell), for £29 14s. 6d, for damages alleged to luvo been caused through';thO' cfofenaant-a j • Tho damage tfad dojio as tho rcault «f a <;o]- ...... jision between JiOTses and carts •belonging to •' parfcies, ;.aa/ft ' ie s ult of which tW -plain- ■ tm sihorse. had.to be Th« particu ars of tho '—Value of the hors?, , iJOj Cost . or • ita :dostrvction/-- £15a.: veterinary fees, £2 25., hiro of horse in place - of tho animal destroyed/ £1 7a."(3d.- - • V l Evidence was called to show that on January :27, : nlaintiff'.s. horse 'and cart were standing in - Cleveland 'Stj-eetj -ffbon a isc'rse '~ . belonging to the defendant, and attached to m express, came down the side of the'strect and collided with.the plaintiff's horse, which ' mi a i ? ro ' J(ln and had to bo destroyed The defendant maintained that'the accident was duo to -no. negligence on his part- The horse had been standing in his yard, as it nlways did ; and ,the .wheels, were-- locked. His Worship reserved his decision. ;V >•.■ CL 4.1 M FOR CARTING - . ..Duignan, ■ general ...-..'earner ■ (Mr. - Moran) ■ sued . F. . Richardsonv(Mr.. Levvey) - j for :£6 os. 6d.; <forf carting alleged ; toTftave been done. , . Aftor hearing evidence, , his-Worship-gave /judgment ; for,- the defendant,., .with .-costs ■£19s. i . i DAMAGE TO A MOTOR-CAR. • . ... (Before Dr. A.,M'Arthur, -S-M ) Jacob Geango (Mr-. P. W. - Jackson), sued Goorge PinnoCb -(Mi :-' D. 11.: Findlay)' for . £59 -4s. I<J,, for meat supplied. Pmncck counter-claimed for £67 lUs., damages to a' m c : arid.' loss of- business .as tlto result or ,a collision with a cart -driven -by .an om- , ployee of Geango. The collision- occurred on the, Hutt Road, in May -last. It- appeared ..' ■from '.Pinnpck's statement -that -the parties had arranged matters so that';he waa to take meat from Goange to square-tlie < account.Pinnock admitted liability .for the amount due for^e'meat, and practically-became the plamtifLin a-claim for damages to-the caj,' ns Geange now -disputed tho arrangement. After a partial hearing the-case was ad- . journed until Tuesday next. COAL SUPPLIED. Samuel' Brown. Ltd. - (Mr. • Kirkcaldie); BUed 0. Christopherson, jun. (Mr. O'Leary), for £11,18s. 6d. f balance of ■ an- account of £15 for coal supplied.,'.., After a partial hoaring judgment was given, for plaintiffs for tho amount claimed and oosts £2 lis. ' 'FORTNIGHTLY WAGES. , Dr. M'Arthur,^"S.M.,- in. jurisdiction undor. tho Industrial Conciliation / and Arbitration Court,'heard a claim by tho Wellington United Furijiture Trades Industrial Union • of Workers 'agiiinst Wm. • E. Pegden. cabinetmaker,, of,- Palmorston North. The plaintiff •union, through its solicitor (Mr. T- M- Wi1.... .... ford), claimed to recover from defendant the . sum 'of £1 as.penalty for a breach of the Wollington-United Furniture Trades Award,dated March 28, 1906. Mt. 'Wilfard pointed • out that defendant had committed a breach of tlio award in that ho had paid,his em.ployeos.their wages fortnightly instead of weokly,"as . provided ■ in tho sward. No defence was filod. His Worship gavo judg- . Mont for plaintiffs for £1, the amount of the penalty askod for. . "OUR REGIMENT." DISPUTE AS TO ROYALTY PAYMENTS. Tho dispute as to the royalty payable on ■ certain lierformanees of the play "Our Regi-' , mont" by tho Mountebank. Dramatic Society was tlio subject of . a reserved , decision given ,by Mr. AV; G. Riddoll, ,S.M. ; The parties,to;fho.action were-Wm. M.-TilSon,^^plain- ■ tiff. (Mr! ■' G i ay), and Dunbar Sloano and r L«)nanliitrooks, defendants (Mr. Hislop). fcilf allege/J tMt; prior to Soptombdr 1908, he , was iha vroprictor .of -tho copyright ; in th&

drataa "Our Regiment." Plaintiff relied on an agreement entered into between his agont in Nrw' Zoalahd and defendants, under which ho sftys defondants promised to..pay £5 ss. on i'bf three pcrformances .to take place m Wellington about tho end of September l§oßi' : 'His Worship-held that.it was clear that, before plaintiff .succeed, he must :provo that ho was,,at-the date of 'the..performances, : .the proprietor; of . the: copyright. ■Plaintiff .was not the author, and the earliest proof of proprietorship ; was the-'certificate of entry at the - Stationers' - Hall, London, idate'd - December '15, 1808. This was not proof'that he was the owner of the copyright in September, nor did tho statements .confiunccl in his powch'of attorney to one Miller, of : Melbourne,-' dated March 18, 1904)- consti- ; tut 6 proof of ownership. The Copyright Act, ' 1903, madie-a copy/of registration certificate prima facio cvidenco of-'ownership,-and, in , the absence of such a certificate, an assignment to plaintiff from the author, or an earlier assignment/or proper proof that such. - an »sMgnment was in oxistenco, should bo 1 producer. This had. not been done, and as . the point had been • raised by defondants, their contehtiorr must-be upheld.'' Plaintiff must be nonsuited, with costs £l Is. In jthese circumstance's,';'addcdvhis . Worship, it ■was. not nccessary, for the Court to decide, whe- . tlior. the arrangement, made- between plain- . tiff'vagerit Jh 'New-' Zealand .and. defendants ■ did, or did not, amount to a,contract. ; RENTING ON A RIVER BED. ' "ANY MAN'S LAND " , Reserved judgment, was- delivered by Dr. ■ AvM'Arthur, S.M., m-the-'oase-of- tho Haywards Land : Company, Limited . (Mr., Tooigood) >v»i Georgo . J./Mitcliell j (Mr.:- Dix). Plaintiffs claimed'£ls-:for tent for portions of .tho bcd of the-:Hufct at Haywards which parts of tho river. •it was alleged, were let by plaintiffs; to; defendant on May 11, 1908, tor one jear. ,His Worship said that the action, must.fail on, several grounds. The first reason. wAs .that the incorporation of the company , bad-not :.boen-;provod, nor : .-was it admitted; -..The next. ..reason was; that -the . offer and acceptance wcro l not -'the same. The offer stated: "I 1 agree to allow you or your agents to -remove : shingle as, required, and to do work, necessary for that purpose." The acceptance statod: "Tho company .. retaining the rights to jemovo shingle *js required, and to do- any work which may be 'necessary in connection "with the estate and its river frontage." The offer and the.ac- ' oeptanc« : not being the same, cohsoquently there could he no contract. In tho third place, defendant denied having received the •acceptance, such as it was. . Plaintiffs said that it'was posted. The general rule.on the posting- of letters; said his Worship, is as between ithe:sender.of a.-letter and the porson to whom it is the post office is the agent of tho sender, and the delivery of a letter to the post office for transmission .is no - delivery to. ..tho."person' to. whom ■it is : addressed-until actually received by him. Lastly;' the -dofendant .nevqr' got possession of tho land, which appeared to be any: man's 'land.; ' Judgment- .would be -for defendant, ' with costs £1 Is. ' MOUNT COOK POLICE COURT. At tho Mount . Cook Polico Court yesterday. bofore Mr.' Thomas/Bland,'. J.P., Minnie Oldridge, chargcd with insobriety, ; was convicted .ihff;di«eharg«>d.; : .Two;:first offonderssimilarly charted ware convicted and discharged. •