MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 767, 16 March 1910, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

OF HOP BEER. ' Ipefore.'Mr^V.;R,. Haselden, S.li, ).\v t'r, judgment was delivered ia'.the' case Thomson, Lewis- and-Co 1 .: (Mr. 'vonHaast) v. A. D. Kennedy and Co., wine ■.'' r merchants (Mr. Ward), a claim'for <£3G .-;'3s<Vsd. tfor . work done and, goods sold . delivered. Defendants had. twohogs-: : heads of concentrate of hop beer and instructed the plaintiffs . to • treat it by " : aerating,'.diluting, and .bottling it. The dilution was to be, three parts,-of "water -; to' : one; of concentrate and instructions' were given that when a hogshead 'was :: . once tapped tho- process was , to go on until finished. Defendants also hqd two, hogsheads of ale which-they instructed i ;*' plaintiffsto aerate and bottle, This, last- ' . mentioned' work. was; satisfactorily ,per- ' formed jiy plaintiffs. When; plaintiffs.began diluting,- the material' they' found that it produced at three to, one, an..ab-. -v*.Bolutely : ,>.iisel<^. and unsaleable article; ; JHiey tried various experiments! with- it and'found, that in the proportion of. Wo ~: to one the result was a beverage equal to tlio "single , ;alo" a: saleable jirodiict. .-':■ Plaintiffs rang up defendants' office, but' ' ithoy were, told that- as Mr. Kennedy was away., they must take the responsibility." Plaintiffs'bottled the material at a two-to- . -. one} dilution..'The magistrate held.'that V. ifvthe plaintiffs - 'had Committed . -any. . breach of duty towards defendants (whichIs remarked, "I do not think they have") }t<..was a case of damnum,sine .injuria. !Fho defendants -Could not Have '• suffered any damage by getting. 20 parts of sale- , able liquor instead of 30 parts; of worthless fluid, The instructions : regarding bottling were not absolute and there was nothing to say, that plaintiffs must adhere etnctly --to . the instructions! Judgment would be for plaintiff on the claim, and; also oh a counterclaim for' <£35 -Is. .Id. ~ .Costs,-" ,£4;lßs:,'. werß:'alloi'ed.''v'"'"!f; '■ HOTEL PROPERTY AT ; .'■'." Jessie Martha Parish,-. Wellington,- and Louisa Christina Stansell,' . ParapaTaumu; claincd <£61 from George:, Alexander Gray, , ' of '.Marton, being: £! 'proportion 'of'jftfit on ; the Post OtjicQ Hotel,' Foiton,' and . J!54, which plaintiffs claimed : ;to be ; a. . reasonable amount,. for the -usd' andi occu- ' : patioii by defendant., (of < plaintiffs';' in-. .'■ terest- in. the ,hotel from September. .4, , 1908, ta November' 6, 1908. After a par-: tial hearing, the case was adjourned until .Friday afternoon.. Mr. Bolton '.appeared for.the plaintiffs and Mr; Brown.'ford*- 1 feodant. . . ■ ; AN ADVERTISING CLAIM. Mr Hnssldcn also'gave'his're'serve'd decision in the case of the Trade Auxiliary , Company of New Zealand, Ltd., pub- ; Ushers,'-Christchurch, v. E. "Reynolds arid ; Do.,- Ltd.,' merchants, : Wellington, a claini for ,£9, balance alleged to be due for • advertising. The magistrate did not- euter into ttie 'details of the case, but gave : judgment for plaintiffs, for the amount claimed, and costs ,£3 4s. Security -for .appeal was.,fixed. Mr. Dunn appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. W. H. D. ilell for .. defendants. . ' ' : . GRANITE TRANSHIPMENT.. . , Sanders,Bros.,'contractors (Mr.. Bloiir), '- proceeded against the Shaw, Savill. and Albion Shipping. Company (Mr. : Myers) for redress (or damage/alleged to, huve . been done to' two packages of granite delivered to the shipping company in " Glasgow for transhipment, to ■ land. It was alleged'that the granite, •which was)part-.of'a consignment ordered .- for the Uriion Bank contract, was dropped from the slings during the process of landing; After hearing tho evidence and legal argument, his Worship reserved his • decision. UNDEFENDED LIST. . Judgment was entered for plaintiff by :. default of defendant - in the following cases:—Now Zealand Fruit and Product • Co. Ltd:, , v. Leonard Elliott, £2 125., costs 125.;: J.' W. Hoare and Co. v. Alphonsus Rush, ,£2O 17s. Id., costs £2 145.; Joseph-Nathan and Co., Ltd., v. Geo. W. ." :iGray, Ml ISs., Sd., costs £2 - Ms.; Wellington • City Council v. Albert Cooper and Chas. Wm. Cooper,' 6s. .'sd., costs 125.; Arthur , Daniel Kennedy and Hy. Walter Willans v. Geo. - Sayer, <£3 4,5., costs 55.; same v. Joseph Williams,.£3-Bs., costs 55.; same v.-Chas. ' Benitley, £2 10s., costs 55.;. G. R. Rogers : v. Henry Oliver,>£l, costs 55.; D. and J. - Ritchie v. Abraham Brown, .£2 .10s., costs • lis.; same v. V/m. Haigh, iEI 175., costs : . 75.; Donald E. Robertson v. Robt. leon. ard.'l7s., costs ss; tho Palace Co.; Ltd., T, Samuel Perth M'Nab. 135,, costs £1

Bs.. fid.; Av-'ifdams v. Wm. F. Leitz, .£8 3s. dd., costs ,£1 4s. 6d.; Fordo and Co. v. Fredk. Wi Anthony, .£3 19s. Gd., costs 10s.; R. andiE. Tingey and Co., Ltd., v. Cowcll Bros;, -£12 10s. 9d., costs .£1 10s. 6<1.; Joseph' Ornirod v. Diehard Herron Dalhous?, .SI os. sd„ costs 135.; Wellington City /Council :v. Goodliall, .£l2, Cd.; :, A. Adams v. Geo. M'Even, V|l2cl7s,'-3d4'eoßtstJßl 10s. Gd.; Ingiis v. I'ounall, £1)1 15s. 3d., costs £2 14s. ... : JjMGMEXT : SUMMONS. . : Iri^the'judgment-summon? case, Anna Eliza -Jtiynolds v. .Walter Reynolds, de.iwdoßt.'«as ordered to pay J6B 7s. 3d. on or/ ..before April 12, in default one monthj vjuiprisonment.' .;;. ! A- -I- I POLICE CASES. Mr. S.M.) '■ ■ i on the criminal;'side of tho •Magistrate's Court was small- yesterdaymorning, the only cases on. the charge'.'sfc&t being against first offenders' for tfrnnkenness.l. was-fined 55., and another, who failed' to appear, was fined