CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 517, 26 May 1909, Page 11

CIVIL BUSINESS.

■,/ ' /(BoforoDr.-A. M'Arthur, S.M.) ' : . UNDEFENDED CASES. ' Judgment for- plaintiff by default of defendant was entered in the following civil cases:— Bates and Lees v. .Nqrmnn A. Nash, 17e., costs. £1 '■ 3s. 6d;; Minister for ' Bailwoys v. J T)>Do.:Colloitl, £3 10s., costs 55.; lI.M. the Kingv. 'Henry. Scoonos, 13s. 9d., ■ costs ; 75.; Millar's West Australian Hardwood Co., Ltd., v. Arthur Alexander Mitchell, JC4 - Bs.'. 9d., costs 10s.; 'N.Z: Express Co., Ltd., v. A. B. Corrigan, 12s. 9d., costs 55.,- Wollington ..City Council v. Geo. Henry Bradley,..£2 2s. lid., costs 65.; Willie. Colin Cook v. A. Scoringe,. ,7s. Gd.', costs 75.; Joseph Nathan and Co. v. Leonard Clough, £2 Bs., -10s.; Kirkcnldie and Stains v. F. 'H.- Riggs-Miller,' JE33. 95.; costs £2 145.; George Tliomas and Co, v..Ngan:Gbw, £2 is., cos.ts 103:; Walter J. Jorgensen v. Fredk.'lluvcomb, £2 IBs.,- costs 10s.; Fredk. Dobson v. Alfred Wobb, £17 45., costs ,£1 10s. 6d.' t. v ; ' ;., JUDGMENT . : iln the /judgment summons' case D. nnd J. Ritchie v. John' Giles, a debt of £i te. Id., debtor was ordered to pay on or before June 8, in ; default eeven days' .'imprisonment. . .-.-. Montagu Spotswood was ordered-to-pay-the "New. Zealand Times"' Co. £i. before June .8, in default seven-'days'imprisonment. T: , . -.-' In the case Hunt and Stowell y. Wm. Frost, a,debt of 75..1 id.,: debtor was ordered, to pay on or before June 8, in default 43 hours' imprispnmenti'/ • ; ■.''',■/. . -.-.-■■ , Alfred '.Townsend was ordered, to. pay . the Wellington Drivers' Union SIHSi before. June 8, in default. 48 hours' imprisonment. John Reginald Welsby was ordered to pay £12 '13s. / to tKe Phoenix Dining Rooms before June; 8, in -default \i days' imprisonment. In , ' the .case..... Michael M'Grath.. v.. Albert 'Peters.-.a debt .'of' £1 Us., debtor'.'was. qrdored t(i pay on or before June 8, in default seven days'- imprisonment. ■'.-.-•:■■ : . -.'.'.•' ■ . .'■ Noiorder was made in the ense A. 'F. .Gibbs and Co., Ltd.,: v. John' W. Thompson, a debt offflls.' , ,';/;/ ■/./ ..'-.-' ; :.- ( ■■'. /' ".".■;■ '.// .'/:/' RESERVED JUDGMENT^' : '. ' ~; \ ■ /.Reserved judgment was given'by Dr. M'Ar--thiir in.the case of F. S.. Greenshields (Mr. Toogood) v; Thos. h<.Hunter (Mr. Von Haast), a claim' for £R. 18s.'2d;~- The'whole' of the. claim, except'6s.-6d.,-was for the services of an engineer serit-by plaintiff, to defendant. Defendant asked for a reliable' man to be sent, but the ■Court .did not consider that the-man sent was reliable, nnd .evidence disclosed that: his exp'eriehcp'in the class of work required was very, slight. ,;As the 1 man's second work eeemed to Ijave been practically ■ useless to defondwit, tlie Court thought, that a deduction of. one .weeks, wages— £3 :los—would meet the case." Judgment would be. for plaintiff for Bs. 2d.,' less amount paid into Court. No posts were allowed.: : ■■' ' ■ '.-■■"■'.-. , Mr. W. ,Q. Riddell, 5.M.,; gave hia reserved decision : in" the case-.of- the Wellington Loan Co. (Mr.iNeave) v. Geo. F. M'Girr (Mr. Blair), :a olaim Is. 3d., 'amount of a.promissory/note made by: Walter Keny and endorsed by defendant, togother with interest:. It .'was admitted that the'sum-ofjei was.paid on account in September, 1905, . aud' the amount claimed; saidT his /Worship, ■ must be reduced, by that sum- and interest. Defendant denied liability "on two; grounds, firstly that he received no notice/of dishonour, and secondly, that plaihtiffu" entered "into an agreement', to allow ■ time to the maker of tho I*.N. after ' its. due date, and without the, knowledge or consent of defendaiit v 'Af ferreviowingHhe' evidence on the first his Worship said that 'defendant denied receipt of. the. notice, .'bttntlfe , Cour'trwiis inclined to' think that, the evidence 'of...delivery at-.the place Jie was employed at sufficient, >to..show. thatiplnintifMiad complied'mth theilaw in' that respects Aβ tooths Second'defence,:his Worship held that anthqrities.were dear that any alteration by a binding agreement and 'the relative positions of creditor and principal debtor, whereby the latter;is .released,' or the remedy' agaipst him : is pended,' or" the" risk of the surety varied ; witb out'the surety's assent, would be a discharge of the guarantee, but the binding agreement must-be fonrided on a good consideration on which an action would Ho-if broken., From the evidence tho . Court 1 was not satisfied' that the arrangement between- plaintiff's .solicitor and Keay ,wns in the nature of a binding agreement. Defondant Tins advised' that the matter wag'settled and,., having accepted that advico in good faith, his Worship did not think that he could now be held liable for the' amount okinied. Judgment would be for defendant, With. :CoSts £1 Is. ■•'■■". '■■ ;.'■' - ; /■::.-' ',: