CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 523, 2 June 1909, Page 11

CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) i , ' UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was entered for plaintiff by de- ' \ fault of defendant in tho following civil i ' cases j—Frank Jacobsen v. George H'Arthur, ' .£6 19s. 2d.; John Duthio and Co. Ltd., v. John Eery BarloV l £s ss. Id., costs £15s. 6d.; Goar Meat Co. v. Heary Thomas, £2 3s. 10d., costs 10s.; Bates and Lees v. Walter Francis Tibbntt, £5 165., costs £1 ss. 6d.; Robert -Willoughby A.rmit v. Norman S. C, Colo, £3, costs 10s.'; Laery and Co.', Ltd., v. Jas. Hamilton, £6 12s'. 6d.,-costs £1 7s. 6d.; J B. MacEwan and Co., Ltd., y. C. H. Slailer, 4a., costs 19s. J John Duthie and Co., Ltd., v. Donald Bates, £55 10s. Bd., costs £2 17s. 6d.; Bates arid Lees v. Hakaraia Hcoi £5155., costs £1 Bs. 6d.; Jas. Smith una Sons v. John Cross, £2 7s. Bd., costs 55.; Andrews and Manthel, Ltd., v. Wm. Henry F00;,,£0 15s. 7d„ costs £1 3s. 6d.; Edward C. Peers v. James Patterson, £28, costs £2 14s. j Darcy Ford v. William Lindsay, £8, costs £1 3s. 6d. ' In tho judgment summons case Joseph Ormrod v. Henry Matthew Stowell, a debt of £16 12s. 10d., debtor was ordered to pay on or before' June 15, in default 14 days' imprisonment. , ," DEFENDED CASES. (Before.Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M.) Harry Clarke (Mr. Casey) claimed £16 14s. from Sidney Arthur Johns (Mr. Fair). It ffas alleged that plaintiff, a carpenter's apprentice, had put in certain work at a house which defendant was building for himself at Brooklyn, all the work being done at night and on Saturday afternoons. For this work plaintiff now claimed wages. ■ Defendant stated, that plaintiff volunteered to do tho work in-roturn for the experience which'ho would get at his trade. Besides plaintiff,, there,wore other 'friends helping defendant on the job. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £5, and costs £2 Bs. < • ;i

PROMISSORY 'NOTE CASE.

' (Boforo Dr. A. M'Arthnr, SM.)

The To Aro Loan, Discount, and Invest-i ment Company/ Ltd. (Mr. Bolton), sued George Butler Lusk (Mr. Ferry), for the Bum of £31 10s., the claim being for £29 as prinoipat, ahd*£2"lQ3. as interest, on a promissory note, signed by defendant. The signature of the defendant was admitted. Mr. Bolton isaid that the defence filed was that there was no the giving of the bill, because the man became bankrupt, and was so discharged froir his> original liability. The bill, which wis endorsed, was given in consideration of the giving up of a, previous bill for a similar amount. He urged that there was no'thing in the defence as stated. The defendant said that he became bank rupt on August 1, 1907, and received ms . discharge on the 26th of the same month. He signed the note which was the subject of the action on January 27. 1908, the note being a renewal of a previous one given by him to the company bofore his bankruptcy. ' Ee did this becauso be folt under, a moral obligation to the man .who endorsed the bills for him. For the defendant, Mr. Perry contended tnat any claim which the company might have had against him was barred by lis bankruptcy, and' subsequent discharge. His Worship reserved his decision until •June 8. , ', A CURIOUS POSITION. ' A case, alleged to have arisen out of a mistake, was investigated when G. B. Richardson, a Blenhoim runholder. proceeded against Graham and Lambert, a firm of Wellington land agents, for recovery of the sum of £7. Air. Jackson appeared for plamtift, and Mr. M'Grath fo/sefendants lne claim, it Was explained' by Mr Jackson, was for money said to have bpen collected by defendants Which should reallv have gone to the plamtift. Defendants were allegedly not entitled to the money, nor were they m any way authorised to collect niil V f i. a i. h ? 1 'i e of at Lower Hutt which had been placed in the hands of Allen and Moore, land agents, for letI BC|ln6 m ? ans or other > defendants Jet the house without plaintiff's authority, < and collected the rent for some time. Thev had refused to hand tho money to plaintiff or his authorised agents, saying that they had collected it on behalf of a mortgagee of the housfc. Mr. Jackson contended that there had been a great mistake in every way, for the supposed mortgagee had not any mtorest m the place at ail Mr M'Grath urged that there was no case for him to answer. There was no nrnof as to ownorship of tho house, and there was some mistake m several respects. His Worship held that he must in ant a nou-suit. If plaintiff wanted his money, he would have to bring forward aom>tl»ne mor e than the indefinite ownership spoken of. I do not know," he concluded, "what the position is at all. Morally, I hace no <10Ubt, but legally I have very grave doabt.' t „ A COLLISION ON THE HUTT ROAD. A collision on the Hutt Road between a motor-car and_ a cart was the subjcct.of a reserved decision given by Dr. M'Arthm, 8.M., in tho case Jaiob Geango (Mr. P \V. Jackson) v. Geo. Pmnock (Mr. D. M. Findlay), lhe claim «as for £53 4s, Id for goods sold and delivered and was admitted, but a counter claim for £67 10s. nas lodged tor repairs done to a motor-car damaged in a collision, and for loss of six necks' use of the car through its being disabled. The Whole, dispute was ns to tho cause of the , collision. Tho driver of a three-horse wagon belonging to plaintiff was proceeding from Wellington to tho Upper Hutt on the evening of May 23, and, when at a place called tho Gorge, the driver said that his horses became fnghtoticd at something, and drew the wagon into the bank on the wronjj side of the road, and into the gutter, from which the horses could not draw it out. Tho driver said that he decided to wait for an other carter, who v. as coming on behind, to get him out. There were no lights on the stationary cart, and, before tho second driver ftrrived, a motor-car, driven, by defendant's

servant, and, coming ■ towards Wellington, collided with the-horses of the wagon. The car was fully lighted. Defendant's evidence was.to the effect that the driver of the wagon was under tho influence of liquor at tho timq of the collision. After dealing with tho various'■'authorities quoted by counsel, his Worship went on' to say* that, in the present case, tho plaintiff'in the claim, and defendant in tho countor claim, was on tho wrong side of the road at night, and.without lights, and lie failed to keep a look-but, remaining content smoking his pipo on the driver's seat. Under the.circumstances, tho Court was of opinion that Geauge wis answerable for the damage done. . The Court did not consider it necessary to express any opinion as to whether Geauge and Pinnock made, any arrangement as to working off tho damage.: by-.means'of a supply of meat, or on tho fact that the driver of the wagon went to' work.on.Pinnpck's farm for a short, time. If asked the Court, would reply that tho trend of the evidence wont to show that Geango seemed to recognise some responsibility immediately after the accident. As to the "amount claimed in the counter claim, six weeks at £6 a week did not seem unreasonable.. Judgment w;ould be for plaintiff on : th.e claim,'and for defendant cm the counter claim—both for the amounts sued for. Costs, £6 175., would be allowed on the claim, and £4,35. oh the counter claim. Security for appeal'was asked for by Mr. Jackson. ;.'-.'. SALE OF A MOTOR-CAB. . Pr.M Arthur, S.M., also delivered his, decision in tho case of Price, and Co.; Ltd., v. Graham and Lambert, in which tho plaintiffs claimed £50 for'balanced.account owing by the defendants to the plaintiffs for a motorcar sold and'idelivered. - -\ ' ... " Plaintiffs sold the car for tho aim of £59, and received as payment a cheque for £9, and a promissory note of a third person for ' £50.' The promissory note' was dishonoured, and the plaintiffs.took a rencwalof it from :the third person.' '/'This' renewal was also dishonoured. The action had been taken by the plaintiffs to recover the balance of tho amount duo on the goods sold. In tho first nlace,.iiis. Worship' considered that tho plaintiffs must be non-suited as to the defendant Graham, .as, in ; his opinion, the Bale had been made to Lambert personally'and not to tho firm.' The weight, of evidence, his Worship continued, -appeared to him to be in favour of the conclusion that th 9 note had been taken by the plaintiffs in absolute payment. To this he was ohiefly drawn'by the fact that at'tbo time of tho transaction the plaintiffs desired the defendant to endorse the:bill; whioh the defendant refused ; to do. The defendant certainly admitted'that he would, do his best to seethe note paid, but he would hot: endorse it. Moreover, the plaintiffs gave a. receipt in full, which of itself would' probably not be conclusive, but which, joined with the fact of the.defendant's refusal to endorse, led tho Court to conclude that.the plaintiffs took the note as absolute payment.'" •'•• k '_This concluded tho case, but.if his Worship was wrong in his opinion thore, the plaintiffs could .not - ori' another ground. On'the. dishonour of the first note,, the plaintiffs, without consulting the defendant, took a renewal from the third person. Now, if a creditor took' from his debtor a bill drawnupon a. third person, and after the bill had been accepted—a fortiori, after the billj had been dishonoured—the creditor altered the bill in regard to payment, he thereby made the bilHiis 'own, and it operated as, a satisfaction of the original debt, although it be.dishonoured. ■-.-■'•' The. plaintiffs wero, nonsuited as to tho defendant Graham, and jndgment was given for tie'defendant" Lambert, -with costs £2 10s. ! -■' :/:■'•■■ • '■' ".'■ ;•'■'" ; ; '-'." ;'■ Mr. Arnold appeared.for the plaintiffs, and Mr.' Blair, for the defendants. ■ : ; •'LOOSE' BUSINESS '; Mr.' W. G.; Riddell;' S:Mi; 'delivered reserved jugdme'nt in the case of Jas. Dudley Trent, -accountant (Mr.'\Goiilter)yvv; George J. Beattie; shipping agent (Mr. Blair). '.The plaintiff claimed £68 3s. 6d., being salary at the-rato-of-£3, a week from September 19 to April 17 (less certain amounts paid at various times), and 14s. ~6d;, : money paid by tho plaintiff oh the 'defendant's account. - The-plaintiff was: in employment .at" Gisborne, and was engagod to. the defendant's sister.-The defendant intended to extend his business and open an office in- Wellington. He wanted to assist\the plaintiff, who was earning £2 10s. a week when the defendant offor'ed'tb take him into his : business at £3'a week for a start. •

~ After reviewing the evidence, his Worship said ;that the business .relations 'between the parties had been-conducted loosely owing to' the personal considerations, and tho. usual difficulty, was experienced when .their differences came before the Court: In his opinion, the.plaintiff had,failed to prove the contract ,he set up-. Judgment would he for'the plain-' tiff.for,l4s. 6d..paid into Court. Tho plaintiff.'was ordered to pay costs, £5 6s.' : '