CIVIL SITTINGS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1515, 10 August 1912, Page 3

CIVIL SITTINGS.

POWERS OF LOCAL BODIES. THE ACT OF 1910. A question of interest to Municipal Corporations was involved in an originating summons heard before Mr. Justice Sim in tho Supremo Court yesterday afternoon. The parties wero the Napier Borough Council, plaintiff, and the Auetralion Mutual Provident Society, defendant. Mr. J. H. G. Murdoch, of Napier, appeared for the Borough Council, while Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. A. do B. Brandon, jun., appeared for the A.M.P. Society. The Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmoml) also appeared. It was set out in the affidavits that the nnancial year of the Napier ' Borough Council eiids. on the thirty-first day of March each year, and on March 31, 1910, tho overdraft on the district fund account with the Bank of Now Zealand was 415,581 Bs. Ud. This overdraft was car-ried-forward to the dehit of the account for tho ensuing year, and since then the overdraft has never been discharged, but on the contrary has bcon increasing, and now stands at .£17,763 13s. lid. Tho Borough Council is now desirous of raising a special loan to clear off tho overdraft, as it existed on March 31, 1910, and tho A.M.P. Society is willing to advance the sum of Bs. lid., provided that Section 16 of the Municipal Corporations Amendment Act, 1910, gives the Borough Council power to borrow for the purpose. The question for the Court to decide was: ■ - ' ■ • Whether such power is given by the 11 Act notwithstanding the fact that the district fund account has.been operated upon since that date, and that the overdraft is now greater than it was on March 31, 1910? After hearing legal argument, his Honour reserved his decision. MOTOR-CAR REPAIRS.' ■ THE APPELLANT WINS. In the Supreme Court yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), an appeal from a decision of Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., was heard. The parties were AValtcr Smart, pawnbroker, of Wellington, appellant, and Wilkin and Andrews, motor engineers, of Wellington, respondents.. Mr. A. Dunn appeared for tho appellant, while Hγ. E. C. Lcvvcy appeared for tho ■respondents. In the original action, Smart proceeded against Wilkin and Andrews to recover the sum of £59 as damages for detention of a motor-car, which had been delivered to them to be repaired. Wilkin aud Andrews counter-claimed for .SlB2 Bs., cost of repairs to the car, and, in connection with this counter-claim, Smart paid the. sum of .£75 into Court. The magistrate assessed Smart's loss for delay iu delivery of tho car at ,£3O, and gavo judgment on tho claim for that amount, whilo Wilkin and Andrews recovered judgment for the full amount (.6182 Bs.) on tho 'counterclaim. From this decision Smart appealed, on the ground that it was erroneous in law and against tht weight of evidence. After hearing legal argument yesterday, his Honour upheld the appeal,! ordering the original judgment ou the claim to stand, but that, oa the counter-claim to bo reduced' (.by ,£4O) to i'l!2 8?. His Honour remarked, that lie thought he was even thea treating respondents very irenerouslij ■