LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1452, 29 May 1912, Page 6

LAW REPORTS.

4 MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Mr. W. G. Hiddell, S.M.) CIVIL BUSINESS. IIAXIS PGR CIUiISTMAS TKAOK. Judgment was delivered in tho cave in which Hill and Barton, Ltd., sued (!. H. J olios for JC1!» B=. (id., a balance alleged !o be duo for a quantity of hams sold and delivered. In sotting out tlio ease, his Worship said that on November 2!l plainliff had sold defendant) HO hams of prime qualify, to be delivered in tho fiist or second week in December. Plaintiff had staled, and defendant had admitted, I'hiil. these hams had been bought for the Christmas trade. Plaintiff had assorted that hams for Iho Christmas trade wero subjected to n shorter curiiu: process than were hams for ordinary use, and would not retain their condition so long as hams cured for ordinary purposes. Defendant and his partner had denied that llsat was I ho practice. Defendant had failed to dispose of tho line as quickly as ho had anticipated, and, as timo had passed, I lie condition of some of tho hams had depreciated lo such an extent (hat defendant had begun to have somo difficulty in effecting saies. Defendant had said that he had begun to get complaints between Christmas and the end of December, and further complaints in January. On January 2.1, a. Health Officer had been called in, and that ofiicial had ordered the destruction. of 45 hams. Defendant had said that in addition he had destroyed about 43 hams prior to January 2.'J, ' ,Son',o of tho hams, defendant had stated, lio had disposed of to the candle company for ono farthing per pound for boiling down purposes. Plaintiff and his traveller had said that defendant had not complained of tho condition of tho hams until considerably after Christmas.

His Worship thought that tho aetion of tho defendant in selling parts of tho hams, and his then disposing of 45 hams to thccaiidie company without reference to tho plaintiffs was sufficient to preclude him from succeeding. With regard to tho hams which the Health Officer had destroyed, he thought defendant was entitled to have their full value deducted from any balance. Judgment was for the plaintiff for .£l6 Bs. lid. UNDEFENDED CASES. In the following cases judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by default-.—E. Bawson v. Sidney Johns. .£3 35., costs 165.; Bates and Lees v. 1!. Freeman, .£8 10s., costs ,£1 3s. Gd.; Henry Denhard v. Alfred Lewis Smith, «£1 4s. Gd., costs 55.; I?. Hannah and Co., Ltd. v. Leonard R. Armstrong, .£1 16s. Gd., costs 55.; John Geo. Haine v. Anthony Geor, X 44 Is. 9d., costs .£3 10s.; David Milliiran v. W. Wainden, .£1 155., costs 55.: Wm. Lewis .Tenness v. Frances Jane Hare, .£l2 Gs., costs 75.; Public Trustee v. Wm. Logan, .£3 10s., costs 10s.; E. Norton and Co. v. Martha M'Gregor, <£23 lis. Gd., costs ,£3 45.; Wm, Henry Edwards v. Thos. K. Macdonald, ,£llO 13s. Id., costs ,£5 155.; W. L. Jenness v. John Davis, .£'4 55., costs 10s.; same v. Jas. Graham, 7b. 6d., costs ss. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Geo. Eowe was ordered to pay diss. Clark £7 Ss. 6d. by Juno 11. INDUSTRIAL MATTERS. ■On the information of Mr. D. Carmody (inspector of awards) a. breach was recorded against Peter H. Thompson for having failed to complete his term of apprenticeship with T. Shields, tailor, Wellington. Mr. G. IT. Fell, who appeared for Thompson, said that Thompson had returned to Shields. No fine, therefore, was made. Gus Trethowan was fined 10s. for having failed to claim the Butchers' Award rate of overtime for two hours' work he did on Good Friday. CASE REINSTATED. Mr. A. L. Herdman .applied for reinstatement of the case (heard last week) in which F. W. Meyer had been fined .£3 for having employed a carter in his bakehouse, Mr. Herdman said that on tho day fixed for tho hearing he had been in the solicitor's room consulting his client, and that when he had entered tho Court ho had found that the onse had been dealt with. Mr. Carmody eaid that the Department did not wish for a conviction which it was not entitled to, but notice to defend had not. been filed. His Worship said that he was prepared to allow the application as mi special case. A rehearing was granted and Juno G was tho date fixed. POLICE SIDE. John Jennings was fined .£3 for having used bad language. For having disobeyed a maintenance order Alfred Edward Smith was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. . ALLEGRO BREACH GF CONTRACT. IN REGARD TO A LOAN. SINKING FUND COMMISSIONERS SUED. General and particular damages for alleged breach of contract were claimed in a civil action which commenced in the Supremo Court yesterday morning before tho Chief Justice (Sir Iteberfc Stout). The _ claim was originally made in tho Magistrate's Court, but had for special reasons been removed, into tho Supremo Court. Tho parties to (lie action wore John Ewing Walker, carrier, of Bulls, Fred. Simpson, farmer, of Ohaken, Ame.l Kkitt, farmer, of Ohakea, and James Hull, bank manager, of Bulls,'plaintiffs; and tho Wellington City Sinking Fund Commissioners for tho loan for Tramways, l'aving, and Town Hall, defenrlan is. Sir. C. H. Troadwell appeared for the plainhfis, and tho City Solicitor (Mr. J, O'Shea) appeared for tho Sinking Fund Commissioners

It. was set. out in tho statement of claim that on or about November 2, 1910, plaintiff (Walker and others) applied to tho Sinking Fund Commissioners for a loan of .£2OOO on the security of 860 acres of land near Otaki. Tho Sinking Fund Commissioners refused lo advance this sum, but on December G, 1910, after the land had been valued at -£2255, they offered to advanco .1:1500 for five years at 5 per cent. The plaintiffs (Walker and others) accepted the offer, but the Sinking Fund Commissioners subsequently refused to proceed with the loan. In consequence of this, tho plaintiffs (Walker and others) alleged that tliev were nut. to great inconvenience and loss, and that they ultimately had to raise a loan on the security of the property at 6 per cent. For these reasons the plaintiffs (Walker and others) claimed .£95 general damages and Xl 3 os. 7d. special damages.

In defence, the Kinking Fund Commissioners put forward a general denial, and contended (ha! it would have been a breach of trust fo lend on (ho security in question, inasmuch as the security was not a suitable one for trustees. and would have been ultra vires of (ho corporation, a public slatnlory body. Further, it was alleged (hat the plaintiffs knew or ought 1o have known (lint (lie peeiirily was no I n suil'-bio one for trustees (o invest. 1111011. For a furlher defence, the Sinking Fund Commissioners contended Hi a t it would have been a breach of (rust fo lend on (lie valuation made, inasmuch ns the valuer was recommended bv tile plaint ill'* and their solicitors, ami (he plaint ill's knew, or ought to have known, thnt it would have been a broach of trust to lend on stub H valuation. Tfearim; nj' evidence occupied (lie greater pari of the day. Mr. O'Shea concluded his address of -i.Ci p.m., and Mr. Treadwel! had still to reply when the Court adjourned until 1(1 a.m. to-day. — CLAIM FOR VALUE OF GOODS. DECLARATION BY COURT. In the Supremo Court yesterday morning Mr. Justice Cooper heard further evidence for the plaintiff in. the ca.se of Gilbert and Co. v. .lohnsion, which was partly hecm! on the previous momiu?. The .parties to tho action wcro Jam.cs Gilbert

einci Co,, plaintiff, imrl Andrew Srnnii Johnston, defendant.

Tho claim was for .£707 fin. 2(1., being 1.-rviiincn alleged to be payable by .1 ohnstoii lo (lillicrl. and flu. us value of goods <•]]- trusted In .ioliusir>n for sale on consißiiHR'iil. A defence u'jim filed in wlii'l; J oil listcin admitted llm making of tlio agreement lo .sell the goods 011 consignment, Iml. alleged I hat it had been waived, and lie full!ir-r alleged that ill'' condition of tho had been misrepresented to liini. The defendant, however, made no appeaivinoe ai llio hearing. .Mr. A. W. lilair. on behalf of theplnlniilV, asked for a declaration that Iho ftr--femlnnt (.fohnston) was n trustee for the plaintilT of tho goods alleged lint accounted for.

After tho ovidenco bad Ven tendered in support of tho plaintiff's en'-e, bis Honour made it declaration to the effect that Ihe goods were entrusted lo tho defendant for sale on configmmnt on terms i-N|iiiriiiK liini to account fur Uio name to the plainlilVs. Mr. Ulair was granted leave to mention (He matter again wlien accounts had been tak'/n. NOT ENTITLED TO SUE. A QUESTION OF MAINTENANCE. An interesting ease, relating lo tho obligations of Hospital and Charitable Aid Boards in circumstances, was decided by tho Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in u reserved judgment delivered at (lie Supremo Court yesterday. An originating summons had been brought to determine whether tho South Canterbury Hospital and Charitable Aid Board (plaintiff) was entitled to recover from the Hawlce's Bay Education Board (defendant) certain moneys paid by tho Soutli Canterbury Board for the maintenance at an industrial school of the illegitimate twin children of a woman who had resided in the Ilawko's Bay district prior to their birth. Tho points submitted to the Court were:—

Whether tho South Canterbury Board was {under Section 72 of tho Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act) entitled to recover from tho defendant hoard money paid to tho mother for tlib relief of the children? If there were such a right to recover, was the liability got rid of by children's committal to the industrial school? At tho hearing Mr. H. D. Bell, K.C. (with liim Mr. li. Kennedy) appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mt. J. H. G. Murdoch (of Napier) for the defendant. After reviewing tho facts and the law bearing on the question, his Honour held that tiio plaintiff was not entitled to sue the defendant board for the cost of maintaining tho children in tho Industrial School. No order was made as to costs, which had been agreed upon.