MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 565, 21 July 1909, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. O Eiddell, S M) ANOTHER MAN'S AUTOMOBILE. Hugh M'Gmre Andrews appeared in answer to a charge of being intoxicated on the evening of July 19, and while in that condition having stolen a rug and motor-car seat, value 10s, the property of Albert Thomas Almond, of the Trocadero Hotel Mr. Wilford, appeared for accused, who pleaded guilty to the charge of drunkenness, but not guilty to the charge of theft Andrews, m evidence, stated that he met a friend and had several \dnnks. Being unused to liquor, h) became intoxicated, and seemed to lose all sense of responsibility. He sat down m the car "for a rest," and afterwards walked down Grey Street to Jervois Quay, with the rug oyer his shoulders "to keep out the rain," and the motor-car seat under his arm "in case he might v want to sit down for another rest" The Magistrate dismissed (the charge of theft, tnd lnllicted a fine of 5s on the charge of drunkenness. "RECEIVING " Ernest "Walter Arthur Sergent, 1 aged 17 years, pleaded guilty to a charge of having received and disposed of a bicycle, knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained He' was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon, alio/to refund r (by weekly instalments ot 2s 6d)-tho sum of £'i 6s 6d, winch he had received as payment /for the bicycle OTHER CASES. ' Seven first offenders were' convicted' for drunkenness Of these one was fined 10s "■ five weie fined 5s each, and one /Was discharged lhe jntormqtion against John Cowan, who was charged with trespassing in the yard of the Albert Hotel, Willis Street, and refnsing'to leave when requested.Vas withdrawn. . - CIVIL BUSINESS. < ' , (Before Dr A 1 M'Arthur, SM) \ UNDEFENDED CA'SES Judgment b> default 'entered up for the plaintiffs m the; following cases .heard before Dr fi > A M'Arthur, S M -Bates and Lees .v Henry Wilson, il3 lis Bd, ctfsts .£1 lis. 6d, Wellington- City Corporation v Edmund Piatt, .£lO6 16s. <sd, costs" £2 2s ~UJlathorne, Hartridge, and Co., Ltd., v. George T Wilson, costs only 10s ; Wallace Herbert Stewart v Charles Wetherall, wC6 7s, costs £1 sa. 6(L, the liquidators of Smallbone, Grace, and to, 'Ltd, ■v. Frederick Crario, jEII 7s 6d costs IDs Sd , George Henry Thornton v Joseph William Carter, £i 16s Ud, costs 10s , Robert Hannah and Co, Ltd, v Sarah Tooker .£2O 13s, costs £Z lis. Millar's West Australian Hardwoods Co, Ltd, v George William Kingsbeer, £S* Is 3d, / costs 10s New Zealand Farmers' Co operative Distributing Co, Ltd, v William JfLeod, 16s 3d costs 8s , Ernest Arthur Palmer v. Arthur Coninghara, £i os, costs- 16s , George Bradlev v "Percy Pethenck, 8s 6d, costs 55., the Pub he Tiusteo. v l Alfred Drake, 1 ,£55,> costs M is 6d , Union Bank of Australia, Ltd, v Lucy , G Milesi, dGIO3 0s Id, costs J!5 18s 6d Thomas Dwyer was ordered to pay the sum of £20 4s 3d to Charles Beuth, oh or before August 3, in default 21 days' imprisonment In the case of the Wellington City Corporation v. Joseph Andrews, a debt of £8 17s Id , the debtor was ordered to >pay on or bofore August 3, in default seven days' imprisonment ' John Carse Arbuckle was ordered,to pay £! 17s 3d to C M, Luke, J. P. Luke, and G Lnke, on or before August 3, in default seven days' imprisonment. '

RESERVED JUDGMENTS.

. CASE AGAINST 'KARORI COUNCIL. "Reserved judgment, was,; dsliyered".by.ODr; If Arthur in tho ease,. Burn (Mr.-. Von'; Haast) r. Karon Borough' Council (Mr. Johnston), I-chins V a * claim" for' -jQO(L comnaiMafcifltt m.

oettain' lands- alleged- to.,havo;,beeh I injuriously.affectedby' the' road construction operations of the Borough Council. Tho Com- 1 ponsation Court awarded . tho plaintiffs - £30 10s.; ; nndV it' Owns ' at- : that', time •. agreed ;> that argument.is"ito'olainiarit'SiTiglit to "receive any compensation should: be resorved. The question "fori decision , now; was, whether, at tho time/of the alteration ■of tho levels, in respect,of: which the claimant asked for compensation, the road- had been constructed m some ;manner.;-within the- meaning of tho Municipal-Corporations Act, 1900. The ansjre'f must j depend,' ori' whether, or. riot Jit cam©: under-, the provisions, of Section 246 ,of tho; " , Municipal-•. . Corporat'idris Act, , 1900, now- -Section" 188 1 of - the. /same . -Act' in-''> V'-thS. ..•.!'-;Consdlidajted:i.' ; Statutes;' .1908. With but. 17 feet-of. metal* in the centre time, no footpaths, no. channelling,..no- kerbing,. the Karon- Mam .Road, all) ciroumstances. considered, could, not- be : hold to "come: within the second exception -mentioned-in the section. - . , ! ■ Judgment;would, ■ therefore, be'given'.forvthe deferidarit;; council.,,' ■Mr. ,; Johnston' intimated that no-costs would bo asked'for. "UP-TO-DATE" POT VTOES ■ The decision of' Mr. W.G.Riddell, S.M:, in the case-of-Brewer; Fulton and . Co. (Mr. Dunn).'V. ■W. E. Timmings (Mr. P.- W. Juck6on), set forth that .the plaintiffs had supplied, the defendant with-a quantity of seed potatoes* for-: the value of- which they sued him.. l 'l^The;-,defendant .admitted the liability, but counter T claimed- for- -.£SO damages for misrepresentation .;in,. connectip'ii'.-Avith';: the', ;sale. .bf the: potatoes',, or,; altei7i'atively,,,-;for.; breach'jfif wa'rranty; by ' the plaintiffs' -that • ' thei potatoes 'shppUW'^ l^ro••'&^.iS^ i -'- ; "Up-to-Dat?," -whereps, in-= fact, they were greatly inferior,-and of little or no .value. His Worship-1 held' that .'.defendant -had'' that" the,-:'damage .suffered :by ;t_he; crop,' was the directSr.esulfc' of.; ! 's6me'.-(lefe'i;t: in- the;-goods-.at the time of sale;-or; if-the damage was,the ,reof.iather -causes,.that; anteed a good crop;v 'His evidence.,was; msufli-clent'in'-both cases. Judgment would, -.there-.. 1 fore,'-be-given for;-the. plaintiffs. ■, - - r <>" ; -1 PROPERTY RIGHTS -Resorved - judgment,was-, delivered.,'by Dr. M'ArthUr, r S:M., in . the oase of Lucy: Anna .'Butts i«Mr.i- ! D.".v'M«v - Pindlay) v.: Benjamin Semeloff,'(Mr.:P./.Levi); -v vPlaintifL alleged / that:. and entered Iftr' land; vcut down -tree;; growing there, .cut- a-'orain.-. and ,-ercctcd a sump, -and damaged- thp boundary fence.;: Plaintiff, 1 there:dalnages.: Defendant-stated, .iHt ; W^tiff.'f6r;sqnie';^i^.«E'^Ks(d permitted-,-it-,to^^Tun;on,.tp v his,'dwri'; land,. thus ..'lamO'Re.''.to; the ■ -who;' 'therefore,, cbunter-claiine'd' for.' agear.';;^^.',•* .<The.'evidence, ..said - his. .Worship, was cleat that , tho defendant entered .the. plaintiff's-pro-.. 'pSrtyoto;'abate.;, the . nuisance^. -without':, getting 'or'-..eveh .giyihg;;'nqfice.^'bf.'-"his intention.. -He-was thus-guilty of, a f trespass. Worship's opinion,: therefore, .-the-'plain-, tiffimust : ™.6ceed, on : tltq;claim',,-.but : -he' did' not. cph6idoi;-; the, damage ;ddne/had: been :very;.; great.-; X~ trespass had been, committed, andsome. d.aniageidone.;-'. :He. /wouldv.giye-'-judgment;,-for'; JSS,, ' olined'-' to ''adjudicate; as m his' opinion, it" raised, a l ' question; oKtitlo, which ousted the v jurisdiction ot tho Court.' ■ '- 1 • GOODS SOLD .AND CASH- ADVANCEDv; : Dr. :M'Arthur also • adjudicated on the case of'MaoEwan-and Co. (Mr. Samuel) v, J.-Bush-ley,Cowing,': Plamtiffs: claimed to recover from the ,defendant.- tho -sum of, i! 100 , 45."7 d.- for balanoe '■ due, :wlth : interest,'; for goods sold and, delivered;and''cash;;' advanoed by; tho, plaintiffs to tho defendant. 1 .': In/: his ;; : eviden'co,' ■ given 'at * Greymouth, the defendant-aiiniitted. liability.,•; for ; ; :;.;In' ;his 'the'-first-'itein;, a;ii' .advanoe..-of;-' 'j820,:-;.but.' in, 'a' l«tter-itp :-.the and.in' the -;plaintiff!s; solicitors,- '' May.'.l - hA- -iHniitte'd. .thfi -which,' :in his .-Worship's he clearly to .This- raised the. amount; of'.his liability, to \£72 :6s. Worship also oonsidorcd that he owed lis. 7d.-.for.piping, and-that.ltiivas only fair, smco he had the .'of-.the;, milking' plant,': and- since; the plain--tiffsMid-'; outward-'.freight,'.; that', he 'should pay-tne'Teturn freight "of £4 6s. Gd.,, for,which, he'drew on-tho plaintiffs. Theso two-amounts increased-his.,liability to v£Bo ;4s. .Id. l As regards the .interest, I 'his Worship could only allow-.-interest. at'.7 per.- oent. on tho cash advanced-and .the demand : drafts, but-not on the goods j feifppliecl—that-would bo on ' ! ,£G-i, 6s. 6d.'—up- to the' date ;'of judgment, amounting' to m i2s. .2d. The magistrate hold the totalindebtedness 'to bo ;;692. ife. 3d.,' for. which amount he -would give, judgment for-the plaintiffs: with':.'costs.'- The,.',milking plant,! having bpen returned, his Worship gave , the ..defendant full credit for it.', CLAIM POR - 'WAGES f'AND' COMMISSION. - -(Before.Dr. A.- H'Arihur, S.M.) Bowles, .driver, sued tho Hutt: Valley Co-operative Farmers'-Milk- Supply Co.; Ltd., for^^4..;i9s. : Gd'.,-''.wages- and commission. ' The defendant company 1 admitted the liability, but counter-claimed : for .£24 3s. ■ 3d., the value of milk- alleged to:have .been, taken out by tho plaintiff and not acftonnted. for. - His -Worship) gave. judgment for, the ■ plaintiff- on -the claim : for ■ £A ■ 19s;- 6d., with . costs •■j6li'l2s.j-and,forrthe defendants;on the counterclaim,- for .£24 3si 3d.",'..with■ costs £2- 10s.■, ••-,• . Mr'-'M'Grath appeared for tho. plaintiff, and Mr.- Wilford for the . defendants.- • , ,•. , . A BRICKLAYER'S CLAIM. , ' (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, SM) In. the .civil' aoiion, E. .J. .Gnmmett (Mr. Dunn) v. H. H. Knight, (Mr. Hmdmarsh), plaintiff, a 1 bricklayer, sued for (1) - wCIO- 9s. 4d., :alleged to be owing by defendant; a builder, for labour lent or supplied by plaintiff to . defendant - with, respect to the lattor's oontract for erecting additions' to. 'the-; Newtown Public Library; (2) the sum of 10s., owing in .respect,. 1 of .-the -loan -.of , three' blocks; 'anil (3)- wroilgiul . detention and refusal- to','deliver: possession, of ■10OO„ : briclis, ' valued at I iE2.'2s.. ; -.-Judgment .was . given . for plaintiff for :J6B'. ls. lld., -'?nth costs <£12-lis. lid. POSSESSION OBJ PUENITUEE ■ .'Judgment -'(without. costs) : for the plaintiff (Rev.ii D. C.. Bates), ;:was given .by his : Worship- m the former'B-.suit, against -J. H. Fair-baim.-'hiienseer' of the : New .Occidental Hotel, for.- possession .'Of. certain l furniture, : and «£1 damages. ; Plaintiff - was repreF«nted by . Mr. Stout.'and' defendant-by iMr. Ward. .The'evidence' showed--that a. eh op in >.the:,hotel build- • m'g• - was 'let.' -to> 'Madame,. Levine;,:. a- -. fortunettJller, who -her possession, three tables, six : chairs,- 1 , and - one • easy i chair, 'the property of the plaintiff; : i Tho dady'fell; into arxear. with the /rent-of defendant's, shop, and, defendant, not J satisfied',.w'itli ; , the." assurancesmade-': bjr-Ker thati-iherarrears lipi ;°seized;th'e -'-Madame'. Levine. 1 Jhad.- -since: -idisap-pearod,.but-had. been heard, of ..m Nelsoni and .WabganttL --13 The' -Magistrate. said - that: /both parties ' suffered loss- by.-,the - conduct.-rof, Madame Levine. ; Plaintiff's .assessment,of ..his own .loss was a'reasonable one; and ■ must. be conceded, ■ with-; possession, as claimed. ■, ALLEGED BREACH OP AWARD. A CREW'S NOTICE OP DISCHARGE ;--The Wellington- Section-of'- tho - Australasian' Federated -Seamen's Jndustrial Union of .the-XJuion Steam Ship Company of-New- ; Zealand,' Ltd;;, for .the penalty .for. an.:alleged-:breach.--of, the. l Seamen's Award..-' .. :• Mr." T; •W. OToOng, of, the, plaintiff union, eaid.-.that, .the . case had:. been *'brought not;so: muoh .the sake; of tho .penalty, >but to--.obtain. 1 -a ruling, from his l Worship- on a question' of ~' some * importance. • The .. facts : . of tho;case;..which ;wero; not:dispnted.-by the-do-' fendant -company,. were .that the ■ crew •of - the defendant's'-steamer: Mapounka had received notice cat . Weetport Hhat :they. would be • discharged: at-.Wellington. : Tho 'award-expressly pfovidod': that;.',twenty-four notice': 1 'of; decision, was—Could .that bo -given .at: any.;;'pdrt;'duririg ; .a:'.tnp; '.or-'ohly'.affer'.'Varriytll-afc the i-portiwhere.'-the' articles hive, been,'mado out;?*The'.- unio'n.l.conteiidtid 'that! - notice • could; be^giyeh-'only. at 'the''latter',port,'in at Wellington '•Mr- -Levi,- .who Cappeared-.-on.-bohalf i'of - the. defrodant cbmjpany, ':.said - that': there ',''was/.'no--' : thingl'ii',tho -award,' or'.the'; Shipping; and Seamen..Act ■to ' jnstify,he' ;contention -; of ,'" the tmion. i.'The Act provided that; there should.-be no ''discharge without; twenty-foiir»hours'.'no-tice,--"previously,-'givCT'/'-'.'Thesei words'certainly -Bore .out; the. contention I of ;th'e 1 company that ;notibej on . a ground:; trip ;; could : be given at, any port. .• •; ,'. .; Mr Young said that a decision in' favour;of the ;:'unioh'.':^6uld : . be more ''harmful/to 1 its.- own members than to the shipping companies. He also! pointed 1 out- difficulty; in the way,.of his union If liis .Xqrship' decided that notice must'bo-given-only'at'the/port where; the -articles''; were; 6igned, -how; would,, they get'-'on vii; tliocase '.of. the"; ferry '• steamers, I ..which' were jiOver;' twenty-fyiir, -.hours.; in,, any', : 'po'rt'.;'i: The -Maori's--articles Wero:signed at-Lyttelton, and the' Pateena's lwor'S,sigiied,;in Wellington, and: neither .' these,jships 'iw^.'-.eyer.;;.twenty-foui'. hours in one or.other-of .the ports." " - gu . .WoishiD ressrvul :hi« dttision. -