MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1125, 12 May 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CIVIL BUSINESS, (Before Mr. W. G. Riddel), S.M.) CITY COUXCIL NO.N-SI'ITED. Reserved judgment was delivered in the action brought bv the Wellington Uty Corporation against John James lioyo, bunder, of Wellington, to recover rlic sum ol; £5 19s. 10d., alleged to be due as the latter's proportion ot a private drain laid through certain properties m Elizabeth Street. Tho City Solicitor (Mr. .1. O'Shea) appeared for plaintifts, and my. D. 31. FiiKllay lor defendant. At the hearing it was explained that, under the Wellington City Drainage Empowering Act of 1H94, the corporation had laid a private ilrain to take the place ot an old box drain that, hid been discovered when the original combined sewer and storm-water drain was laid year* ago. The cost of the new drain had been ascertained end apportioned, and, under Section 4 of the Act, the council had elected to do tho work themselves. Notice was served on the property-holders concerned on Juno 22, 1909, and the work was • completed before October 11, 1909, at a cost" of'.£32 6s. 3d. Defendant was i the owner of certain - premises affected, and his proportion of tJie cost ha". been, assessed bv the City Engineer at Us. 10(1. Demand for payment had been made on September 28, 1910, and on various other dates, but the money, had not been paid. ~ ~ Mr. Eindlay asked for a non-suit on the ground that plaintiffs had placed no proof • before .the Court that the drain was a private drain. They had tendered evidence as to its discovery, but there was no evidence that it had not been put down bv a public body to serve a public purpose". As a further ground for nonsuit, counsel submitted that tho certificate" put in by plaintiffs was no proof that the.city engineer had certified to ■ the total cost of the work and properly apportioned the costs, and, lastly, it was submitted that plaintiffs' case must fail because there was no proof that notice had been served on any of the other owners concerned, whereas, counsel contended, this was essential. Deferring-to tha .first non-suit point his iWorship held that the onus was upon the • plaintiff corporation to prove that the drain in question was a private drain, and he thought that some further proof on the point was necessary. In regard to the second point raised, his Worship said: "There is no doubt that tho document produced by plaintiff is not a certificate in writing under the hand of the city engineer in either of the forms mentioned in the schedule. . . . At best it can only be described as a memorandum from which a proper certificate could be prepared.-" The third objection, his Woiship did not think could be sustained. Plaintiff was non-suited with . costs £1 Is. , CARRIER'S LIABILITY. Ernest Colin Hayton, canvasser, of Wellington, sued J. Campbell, carter, of Wellington, to recover the sum of .£l4 as damages, alleging that (on or. about, April 18 last), he (.plaintiff), proceeding in the usual course of business, had placed his.bicycle in the recess of the building used by the Dominion- Sign Company in Fansh Street, and that the defendant (by his agent or servant) drove a-dray laden with sacks of grain along Parish Street, and that'the. grain was so . carelessly or improperly stowed that a number .-of- tho sacks fell off the dray,' crushing the bicycle, and rendering it utterly useless. Mr. P. O'Rcgan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Fitzgibbon for defendant. For' the defence it was denied that there had been negligence in stacking grain, but, it was contended that plaintiff had been guilty of negligence in leaving his bicyclfc whets ho did. After hearing evidence, his Worship considered that plaintiff had (advertently or inadvertently) been responsible for the loss of the bicycle, there being evidently some defect in. stacking the grain that was not recognised. It was a case in which the equity and good conscience rule might suitably be applied, and, after assessing the value of th-s bicycle at ,£lO, his Worship gave judgment for that amount .witjinqosisotoiajling . .£3 10s. ..; SURVEY FEE .'CLAIMED. : Davies and . Forteous, surveyors,. of Wellington, claimed ,£1 Is. from Henry Brown, boardinghoiise-keeper of Wellington, and Mrs. Brown, wife of Henry Brown,' for attendance ' and services' in surveying a section at Day's Bay. . Mr. Putnam appeared for plaintiffs, but defendants were not represented by counsel. It appeared that plaintiffs surveyed certain property for defendants, and, after thesurvev, defendant Henry Brown, being, unable to find one of the pegs, asked that it be pointed out.-. Plaintiffs agreed to go over the section again, and, if the peg was in its place, to charge a. ferf-of «£l Is., but, if it were out of place, to charge no fee. The defence was a denial of any agreement to pay the extra fee. Judgment was for plaintiffs for t.ie amount claimed against Henry Brown, with costs Bs., and witnesses expenses 10s. 6d. Plaintiffs .were non-suited against Mrs. Brown.

. (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) REPAIRS TO A LAUNCH. Hearing was concluded yesterday of the rase in .which James Bringin«, boatbuilder, of Wellington, sued Peter -Heyes, accountant, of Wellington to recover the sum of £18 65., balance alleged .to be due for work and labour done, and materials supplied in removing defendant's launch Titania from the' Boat Harbour to the plamtifl s vards removing old engine, refitting new engine, replacing deckhouse, repainting, »'c Mr. J. C. Peacock appeared for plaintil,' and Mr.' J. J. M'Grath for defendalDcfendant filed a cross-action claiming the'sum of .£2O, alleging that in the month of August, 910, he had entered nto an agreement with Bringins whereby the latter agreed, for the sum of £10 and he old engine, to do the ellowing work o the launch: (1) Remove the engine then vih. launch, and fix m its place a Thorneycrbft. engine; ■ (2) remove the de'khouse then on .tho launch, and renhce it by a smaller deckhouse; (3) place thl now engine in a separate comparti ,n,l .rive access to it from the It was further alSin the claim' Hint Bring.ns did the vor referred to in the agreement ma v and unworkmanlike manner, and the i ■ in-' made in respect oi the less cl Tin«M«- He?es owing to the defective S» s pS unskilful and negliZt "lament of the- engine by Bringing e SX r h^«cr,an (I '^^rale^fdecisio, UNDEFENDED CASES. .Tudement bv .default was .given -, for plaintiff in "the undefended S:-'P. R- Russell and to vHarn> xv.j ("> n- costs 125.; Inglis Bros. v. New -Zealand Times Co., Ltd , v. Frederick D. Fergusson. costs 5s ; Welingtou Gas Co.. Ltd, v, Sara* Burton, 8s! 7d., costs 35.: lnglw .Bros ,F J). Taylor. .£6 15s. 3d., costs, .£1 4=. 6(1... Aitkeii, Wilson and Co. v. Ba'lmger Bros., 'iS2 25,, costs ,£5 -Is.

. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Frank Meyrick was ordered to pay .El Us. to the Wellington Publismng Com-pany,-Ltd.,-on or.before May &, 1011, in default seven 'clays' imprisonment. In the case of M. E. Rainbow v. James Buiid, defendant was ordered'to pay x« 2s. sd„ balance of tho amount owing iO plaintiff, on or before May 25, m default seven days' imprisonment. POLICE CASES. . (Before Mr. W. G. Ilitldell, S.M.) . THE ARREST OF AN AUSTRIAN. Antonio Stuparich, an Austrian, was charged (1) with using threatening nehavioiir in Gliuznee Street on May 10; (2) with resisting Constable Shaw whilo the latter was in the execution of his duty,, and (3) with making use of improper language. Accused pleaded guilty to the first and third charges, but. not guilty to the charge of resisting the police. Fvidcnce of three witnesses was to the effect that Stuparich struggled with Constable. Shaw, and the assistance of another constable, had had to be pro-

cured. Accused stated that he was merely protecting himself against the canstable, who was endeavouring to choke him. His Worship held that'll conviction must he recorded, and, as there was a previous conviction against accused for. resisting the police, he was sentenced to 1-1 days' imprisonment. On the charge of using improper language a sentence of 11 days' imprisonment was alsn imposed, while, for nsiiis I listening behaviour, accused was fined 205., with the option of seven days' imprisonment. UNFIT TO APPEAR. Robert Henderson, who appeared on bail charged with obstructing Constable Shaw in the execution of his duty, was in such a-condition when he entered the dock that the. magistrate refused lo accept his pica at that stage, and he was taken into custody. A few minutes before his name was called, accused had been ejected from the body of the Court for creating a disturbance. VAGRANCY. "William nammington pleaded guilty to u charge of being a rogue and a vagabond in that he had beta found by night without lawful excuse on premises in Hobson Street. Chief-Detective Broberg stated that accused had como out of gaol on "Wednesday, after'serving a. sentence of n, month's, imprisonment for being found by night on the same premises. On "Wednesday night, about 10 o'clock, a complaint had'bneh -received from Hobson •Street, and,the detectives, on going down, discovered accused secreted on a balcony outside a young lady's room. There could be no excuse 'for his being without a. bed,.os lie had money in his possession at the time. Accused had a bad record, including several convictions for indecency. The magistrate imposed a sentence of twejvo months' imprisonment. An old woman, named. Carrie Corbctt, pleaded guilty to a charge of being an incorrigible rogue, and was sentenced to a year's imprisonment. Similarly charged, Alice Brown also received a sentence of one year's imprisonment

• V . . OTHER CASES. William Hbldey was asked to show cause why lie-should not be adjudged the putative father of an unborn illegitimate child.'On.the.-application of Mr. P. W. Jackson, accused was remanded until May 17, bail being allowed in .£6O and two sureties of .£3O each, or one of .£6O.

Albert Mildenhall was charged with stealing, on May 10, a milk can containing five gallons of mill;, of the ■ total value of lis. Sd.. the property of F. E. Green. On ..the . application of Mr. P. W\ .Jackson, accused was remanded until May 15, bail being allowed in .£lO and one surety of .£lO.

John Chrisfensen, charged with drunkenness, was fined 205., the alternative being seven days' imprisonment. ■ Two first-offending inebriates were fined 55., with Hie usual alternative, and another first-offender (a female) was demanded for a week for medical treatment.