MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 975, 16 November 1910, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) RUGBY UNION SUED. ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT. The Bet-one • Borough Council sued the Wellington Rugby Union to recover the sum of £25 as damages for an alleged breach of contract in connection with tho playing of ; football matches on the Petone Recreation Ground during the season 1909. Mr. R. C. Kirk appeared .for plaintiffs,, and Mr. A. L. Herdman-for defendants. . ' Plaintiff's, statement of claim set out that, in 1909, a contract, was entered into .with the Rugby Union whereby the I'etone s Council ; granted the union the use of the Recreation Ground throughout the football season of 1909. The contract • was subject to certain conditions, one of which was that if tho Petone • stoior team met a' team in tho first round at a place other than Petone, then tho] corresponding match in the second round was to be played at Petone Recreation Grounds unless it happened to be a final or a semi-final. This,: condition of the contract was (it was 'alleged) broken . on August 7 by playing tho .Petone-Athletic match at Athletic Park. In consequence of this the council suffered considerable loss. They therefore claimed the amount stated. ■ ' , Mr. Kirk, in opening.,th© case. said, thoquestion woffld 1 t'urn ! oh" 'what was meant by tho word "semi-final." Evidence was called with; a' view to showing that during the season of 1909 the. -Petone^Athletic match in'.tho first round was played in Wellington, j On August 7, when the same clubs were fixed to meet in tho second round, no one (it was contended) could toll whether theresult of' the match would leave two or more than two teams in the running for the championship. ■' As it happened, the match proved to be a semi-final, but, had 'it resulted differently, it . would not' have been such. The council had protested to the Rugby Union both before and after the match that, the match should have been played 'at Petone. . \ Mr. Herdman, for the defence, contended that the contract, between 1 the parties did.: not' comply with the requirements of ,tho Municipal Corporations Act.: The contract should . navo been produced sighed by two memjbers of the council, but this had not been done. Evidence was called-with a view a view to proving that the Rugby Union had a practice of declaring tho championship. matches closed at any stago of the second round, when it was found necessary in order to fit in the' representative fixtures.. It was contended that they had a perfect right to do so. The fixtures on August 7 were arranged so that two, teams 1 , would be left to play off the final, and the matches on August 7: were therefore semi-finals, notwithstanding the.fact that fixtures had previously been drawn for August 14 and 21.'... , ... The Magistrate reserved decision until November 22. DISPUTE OVER MILK SUPPLY. Thorvald Christensen, dairyfarmer, of To Horo, sued Thomas Hill, dairyman, of Johnsonville, to recover, £39 13s. Id. for milk supplied, and £91 damages for loss sustained by alleged breach of contract. Defendant counterclaimed £29 damages for ! alleged loss ' sustained through plaintiff determining, tho contract. Mr.' R. C. Kirk appeared .for plaintiff, and.Mr. P. W. Jackson for defendant. . Defendant paid £11 18s. Id.' into Court as tho difference between tho claim (with costs) lor milk supplied and {lie counterclaim. ;The claim for £91 damages was repudiated. ; After lengthy evidence had been called for tho defence, tho Magistrate reserved, decision until Novmber' 22. APPLICATION TO.INSPECT. ' In tho caso of W. F. Potts (Mr. Anderson) v. A. Max (Mr.-Hart, Carterton)— an application to inspect documents—an adjournment till November 22 was granted, 'when tho Magistrate v/ill give his decision oh certain points of law. . ■ UNDEFENDED CASES. ' Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in the following undefended casesJ. R. Wilton v. Gustave E. Miller, £2 13s, 5d., costs 135.; J. G. Raino'and Co. v. Edward Reed, £5 Is. 3d costs £1 165.; Humphries Brothers v. Walter G. Williams, £77 17s. 6d., costs, £5, 45.; Colonial Carrying Co. of New Zealand v. L. Allen, £l 10s., costs 10s.; -Allan and Co. v. Thomas Bain, ' costs 12's.; Stewart Timber, Glass, and Hardware Co., Ltd., v. Arthur and John George Williams, £11 Is. 7d., costs 155.; Mrs. Margaret Casey v. V. Maher, £1 Is. 10d., costs 55.; Gamble and Son v.'Charles Masters, £5 103., costs.Bs.; Stewart Timber, Glass,, and Hardwaro Co., Ltd.,. v. Frank Harold Richards, £7, costs Bs.; A. D. Kennedy and Co., Ltd., v. Walter G. and Susan Dorocs Williams, £59 ss. 6d.', costs £4 14s. Cel.; Dresden Pianoforto Manufacturing and Agency Co., Ltd.; v. Thomas James Osborne Stephens, £34 75., costs £2 145.: Edward Campbell Evans v. Edward Haiinan, £2 16s. 6d., costs 10s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Robert Whiteman was ordered to pay £12 18s. lOd. to the United Farmers' Co-oneratiTo Association. Ltd-.

t on or beforo November 29, in default t soven days'imprisonment. . Robert Mouat was ordered to pay £2 i 18s. to Gamblo and Son on or before . November 29, in default three days' • imprisonment. Thomas Kiddler was ordered to pay £5 19s. 3d. to S. Luke and Co., Ltd., • on or before Novmber 29, in default i seven days' imprisonment, i . No order was made in the case in • which Patrick M'Namara claimed £816s. s from H. Aldrideo. , POLICE CASES. - (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) ! Andrew Scott was brought forward ' for sentence on a charge of being an ! idle and disorderly person. Sub-Inspec- [ tor Norwood stated that inquiries had been mado, and the authorities at J Ohiro Homo were willing to admit tho accused. Tho magistrate remarked that \ accused would recoive medical attention at the home. Ho'would be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence ) when called upon,.on condition that he ;'- entered- the home and remained there ! for six months. ' Charles Thomsen, on a charge of drunkenness, was fined 10s., in default ' 48 hours' imprisonment.