CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 648, 27 October 1909, Page 11

CIVIL BUSINESS.

' t (Bofofe Dγ A M'Arthur, S M) Ing tfivil easw -Halionsfoin Bros. Ltd v Altert'Ctaut, 13s Gd costs, 7s , Agncnltftal jnd Pastoral Food Co, Ltd. v A. Yulo, JSI 11". «sU Us: Wellington Publishing Co. & '. T , , Ca, j ham > liquidator for Bw jr. a«d linhy, Ltd v, Roland Waghorn. 10H-Bd,, eert-1 5b New Co rartier/ « »j»r»tiT» Ltd r Mary An" • Can 11«, M 17« M , (», , VMtum Inyrt v Vrink Wilting. JB. cSJu'ta .Btei be-t Indrewatha r, Julius Ltmbnx, Jt* 15,, cnsW Ha , Nieliolai rern»u<lo. t Mri Loum H Tootner, M 9j IW, «j»t» U , Ueuteath and Ber-r. v- Beniald p Ball, Ug m costs f), w M , Q»oige Douchty aud Co v Jumee Allot ookU Us , Edward Colli» t F. CarHnroMd OliT»r, oasts 10a , Wtlllagtou Qty Cornarohmi t (Wjo B Biokudma, AH 1 3 f T Jo*ph t naricli Bn)rl»*<( Tounn, f(Mwr«l«ii of teasjaent by Keremtw f, with ocatt 15». ' . JUDCWBNT SUMMONS, hi the judgmui euaisoiu case, Clara Elirin t. r. J. Steele, a debt of 4s 6d, ue order wiw Bade. fl OWJNEK AMD BUILDEB Dr. M'Arthil/ delivered his referred decision lu th(i eaw T. W Ward (Mr. Dix) v Cathenno Darby (Mr Toogood); a claim for X9B 8s 10d

:{6r.^maferia;ls;«ttTOllq'(l?arid'w6rk''doni)"-by\the 1 Slnintiff,, for -the' defendant at her request iirier_a -written tender;■■ . ■' .'.... '■<'•■ ;■.. ' -.'■ -:His. Worship said tlmttbere wns an informal lender dr'.fagreeraent liotween tho parties for •£lsi,;.whicli wns-nqt disputed. The difference'petwoen'.the parties' concerned extras and the manner in which certain, work was done. Tho' law assttrhod that'all ivoHc. must bo done in a workmanlike manner. His Worship:reviewed: the work in detail, anil came to the conclusion that there was a total amount owing to tho Slaintiff of .£l7O 3s. 2d.' Of .this, £38 12s. had , een paid, and his Worship allowed £3 10s. to, niakc.gpod'defcctiTO workmanship. This left a bajance of .£O9 Is. !d., for; which . nniount judgment, was given for the plaintiff with costs.' STEWARDS. ,\ •Tho Federated Cooks' and Stewards' Union of Now Zealand asked that a penalty., of be imposod on the Anchor Shipping.aiid Foundry Company, ''Limited,''for. alleged breach, 'of tho Cooks' and Stewards': Award, dated' April 27, 190-l."ltwas'stated'that the defendants liad'employCd one L.:W. lludm'an on their'steamer ■Nikau.-.as.a steward, and had paid'hiui only ■JEC per "month, , instead of .£lO. . .'■.■;■'. • . ' , .•'Mγ.''; Jones,: secretary... of. the. plaintiff union, called.evidence'in'support of his case. Witnesses stated that' .the work done by Eudmah was that of α-steward, not an assistant steward," and that he should be entitled to the award .rato'of 'pay:;for (i steward. ,',-'.• : .-. . ' ■.".'■ ■ ■■ l '.'-llr.'':.A. ! :li. Hcrdman, on hohftlf of'the de-:fendant;company,.-stated that';the Nikau.employed a manias cook and steward, and had .alsoan'assistajit stenrard and a stewardess. The carrying of "a cook , and steward did away ,with .the.-need of a .steward; proper. Rodman, he submitted,/ could be classed only. as', an assistant steward, and paid as such, ■_ : . ■ ■ ~ • His.Worship : promised to look into, the point and give his decision on' , Friday. ■':.• '■-■ .; ,>r"THE "GREATEST.'CONSIBBRATION."' /■ ~. John P.' Skelley. (Mr, '6'. Beerej : .sued J. : F.. Kuch (Mr. Iveavej'ior £17.H15., tor commission 6n';the salo'of; cprtaiu property at Island Bay, , : effected by- the plaiiititr ou. behalf of, the de■rlcn'dant.-.:-'.':.'^ 1 -"- , ,-.-,-://',.■:":■-V'.:.^;,.-'■'■: ■■•'■. :':.:'■•: <■.■'■'■■ , ~.'i'he...defendant had a"property at \Uland;Bay; arid. ih. llarch,Vloos, : expressed .a .desire to Wll .it,■ promising plaintiff,.if ho.efiected.a sale,; the same cptamission as would/be, payable to anyone .else.' . 'Plaintiff approached threo persons,.•who into.bindiiig'contracts.to .'buy. -He ,was' satisfied with his : treatment as; regards' tiro,' of'the'buyers,, but'claimed that ■coiuinis-siori-.was duo in respect to thb, sale, to the'third. '■.-Mr. Beere said ■.that' tho "defence", would probably, -bo'-, that, the plaintiff .was not a regular cpmrnission agent;'. Be. had.been :a commercial traveller;"and being''down .on'his. luck , ''had doho odd jobs for-defendant."'v '..'.'.' •■' -While iplaintinv was in the box Mr. Neave endeavoured ■ to mako him•: admit ".that defendant extended charity"''to': Mnf during his "hard-up" period. '.''Has .not Mr. Knch.always shown you the .very.greatest considerationf" he asked. ;; ■ '/''Tes.'i.was'.'thoanswerj'. "if. you. call/paying 'me'about half-prico,'f.or'eferything' I've done consideration."" .■."•-;.•■; ■'•.'■■::•;• ■■■-(:'■. -.■;': <.i- : r.-y..\. '-. ■ :'■ ■■'■"•. Has • he not' given ''yen ft haijd f reqnently by giving .you :Work?—Tesj and, paid" me'twopence an.htmr,. ; for.-a dayVTrorli.j ~ l '. l'. : ' • ■ ,;■ .Tir6penc6.;an 'hour?— Yes,: twopence hn hour.'. Perhaps it i\ras my! own ■ fault ;foiv not. knowing ■th»! .value.'of.-my .work.;'; :.•>'/: ''■:■' '■',' ■■' . Defendant, elaim'fd ..that nny^'payments .which Lhfd.bepn'promised .plaintiff,.,in respect r of the '.sale.:had-lohg ago been , : de.'fault" of .one .Si , the:thrco mc.n-to wKom'part of ! thr'property.^yas.to be splfl.the'ilijfnndapt had ■piiffered'snbstanti.Bllosfi,.- He-"(ltnitd absolutely: th»t thrfr;i'"n."i'a ■pennT;pwin(;;to:the .plaintiff.■■i '..-His Worship., gave .jWgmpnt for .Hip plaintiff, forthe amount claimed, costs X 2,-,. ... : '■v '>:4^ .; -;K',- ''-. : '-. V.iP./.Hv'.'Miller-andi.Company.v'fMr! : Samuel) proceeded; iisairist' Frederick-'William Rankine ;(Mr. 'Jl'Grath)' to' recover £6,' t\it, value of. a bicycle, and-: io'-damases :for--detentioti.-'-;,' •, . '.: In .outlining - ; the.; ; case■' for/ tie plaintiffs,. llr., SanJuel/ntatcQ , that : ,the ! bicyclt.was- the projierty;'pf^plaintiffsTi'vHe, alleged -thst;' it was Btolen from, theirs premises .Jiii'May, last, and eubsequently ;sold to -defendant, but on' being .identified: by^'plaintiffs'.employee, it was handed to the:police.:-:.The attitude,taken,.by,'the police .was.-that • only, hand ,the,bicycle to. 'plaintiffs', upon *an order'lroiri'defendant. .Plaintiffs made 'application: to the defendant for this order,*, butf ;;he'.: , .declined.-t0..-.givp' : . : it,'.<henco. .the proceedings. ■:/}!■.„.-. : V:'v i J' ''■.;';. -i .^■^r.- .JSl'Grath: , contended tfiat 'there Was' no-' thing: to^^•6ho;w:that e '!fie' , »fflatlif^oleTa^ 7 fr , ; that it was riot 1 propofly.'soltlito'Rankine'.:". '■The .Magistrate ordered,'.\that. the'bicycle should ■ be Jteftlsed to .aUowJcosts.^^^i^i'pi;^.';^"':':;■...' -i r\ v. ■•;«. i; : - • A;'claim. of '£I ;i'e^'yaiuatibii-!;fcs< r aHeged to .be owing; by defendant,., w'as-'the'.subject .;■ of an aoUon! between C;t.Colquhoun,' (Mr. Meredith) ;and;T. Twist (Mr. Jl'Grath); . : : : ; :>' ./. 5 .;For.lthe. defence,^Twist said that the" arrangement :'.'w'asi'that-ifvtt; loan was:'not -negotiated nb.chnrKe "wasv.to.rbel,-made for the valuation. This', was/denied; by.plaintiff. : ; ;;::: ~ : ,- ;.The,;MaKisti;ate .said -that in .making-:such 'a, defence, , 'defendant put! Himself, in the position ..of;plaiiltiff,'.'a.nd".ho;ihijst'.pttiye.'.hi9-.'ciisei--;-:.This' t'o.-doiCahu judgment miist be pten''-'for>plfiintiff,v.withs<osra;-&;-.--..^';'' : ...;'..v'.'-'.. /. V *■?!■ ?$ 'iCOOTRI'C^'^;- : . catering' for')'tho: workers .at the -new . Wainui-07mata : reservoir was, the subject of a lawsnitvbetween iWi i-Trirablctfc.(Mr. Meredith) and .thbv.Wollington. City:'Council"'(Mr,:O',Slica): The' amount claimed iwas v£34'..551! 9d.,' of which tho defendant .corporation paid *£24 into. Court, leaving:d.balancei of..€ioiss. 9d. in dispute ''-'■ "■ Meredith ; stated 'that, his/client took a-sub-contract to : catef .for 50' hands : at '-'Us. per week.' ': These.-men - were .in:: : the employ of Messrs.'.fMartin.-'jHurrell, and- , tractors .-for '.the^reservoir. : ■" The -corporation , had; a -numbor; of.: men ; 'at: work; on "the spot, and plaintiff was asked;;to. supply, them. Ho stated that he agreed to ; (lo it. at £1 a ; week,' ■as special.arrangements had .to' be made. The defendant 1 corporation claimed :that tho: price wasilds./pof^week. l ';/:-; ;'.■'. '• ''■ ■ ■'■•.- '■'■■"•-■)■"'. V.Evidence r was heard ; at', iength, after -which his said . it■ ;was clear/- that defendants" never-considered themselves liable for /'more -than ;■ 14s. per - neek:.,' At: the same time, he thonsht'plaintiff entitled to something more'-"thane this; /' /..Therefore, : ho woiild• give .|udgmcnt/for. plaintiff;, for the .amount paid into.Court, plus ; IBs.' 4d., with costs ; JBl ss. : ;;>..':j ;./CIJAIM;;FOE-WAGES.: '.: ' ;., ; ! .; J.'Stockbridgo r sued AV : T.-.Almbnd, manager , of tho Trocadero Private' Hotel,'for 75.; 6d.; one.wcek's wages, alleged .to.'be due. . ' After/evidence by plaintiff, defendant stated that ho employed plaintiff (is a rouseabout, but that no money was: owing him. : f : ■: His Worsjhip stated that on the"■'evidence it was .-impossible ."for plaintiff 'to '-succeed ■ would, : ,therefore/ be given for" defendant. -;";■: S ■;:i':. : V'-; ; .-..■'.. :.. .