CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1713, 2 April 1913, Page 4

CIVIL BUSINESS.

I' CLAIM i'.OR COMMISSION. Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) The concluding evidence in the case iri wfiioft ;Iho»p»n anjl Umii, land .ajenW,

Wellington, and —. Sno\v ; land agent, Hamilton, ctaimod the sum of ,£179 from Cecil Norman Mardon, being commissi >11 alleged to bo due to plaintiffs for effecting an exchange of laud-on liclialf of t.ns> defendant, was heard in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Mr. Gray, K.C.. appealed for the defendant, and Mr. 0. 1!. Beere- appeared lor the plaintiffs. His' Worship reserved his decision. (Before Mr. W. G. liiddell, S.M.) 1 p CLAIM FOB DAMAGES. . Tlenry Hcarfiold, ojrpn'ation employee, claimcil' the sum of <£13 as damages from J,ais Christian liasmusseu, storenmn. Brooklyn. Mr. J. O'Shea appeared for the plainHIF, and Jlr. M. Myers represented thy defendant. The plaintiff, who is a. house-refuse collector, in his statement of claim, said that on'Februury 13 he removed rubbish from defendant's place. Ho alleged that the rubbish coutaincd"some corrosive substance, and whilst lie was carrying it in his basket, some of it fell on his back, and severely'burned him. Through the burns he was off work for a fortnight, during which time he was only paid halfwagos by the corporation, in addition he suffered great pain and inconvenience, and lie therefore claimed X' 3 as special damages and'.£lo as general damages. Mr. Myers, for the defence, said that the evidence was not conclusive enough for plaintiff to,succeed in this action. Mr. O'Shea said that the by-law provides for the receptacle to carry dry rub-, bisli only. People were not supposed to put any corrosive rubbish in their rub-bisli-bins. . Decision was reserved. REPAIRS TO DOGCART. In the case, of tho Commercial Agency, Ltd., and T. P. Lyons, Wellington, v. W. Ward, Wellington, for £.1 7s. 6d., for storage of a dog-cart, and cost of repairs, judgment was given for plaintiff for 2s. lid. Mr. H. F. Von Haast appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. H. L. Machell appeared for the defendant. RESERVED DECISIONS. DAMAGES-AWAIfDED. Reserved decision was givei) by Mr. W. G. iiiddell, H.M., yesteruay; ill the case in,which Thomas Win. ltousbn (Mr. Luckie), railway employee of Ngaio, claimed from Henry Bavdsiey (Mi'.. 0. 'Beere), builder, also of Ngaio, the sum of ,£IOU for damages, alleged to have been caused to the .plaintiff's property. His .Worship said that plaintiff and defendant live on,'opposite sides of Inlay Crescent, in Ngaio, plaintiff's section being oil the lower side of the road, and defendant's on the opposite side. The road is a narrow one, winding around the 'side of a hill and crossing the top of a gully, which runs through the plaintiff's , property. Some time ago and prior to July, 11(12, defendant made an excavation for building purposes on part of his section, and deposited tho spoil on the. sloping bank between the outer edge of the excavation and the road. Evidence went 1 to show that a considerable quantity of spoil had been' deposited between the outer edge of the road and plaintiff's fence, so that the fence supported part of it. The result of the soil being so deposited was that a water-chaiinci blocked, and' .consequently' when any heavy rain fell the, water, unable to pass tho soil, would just soak into it. In tho course of a 1 slip occurred, carrying tliß fence and water-logged enrth, ; across' the plaintiff's track on to another part of his property. The plaintiff alleges that but for defendants placing spoil against his fencc and blocking the water channel no damage would have been caused to his property. Tho defendant states that the damage was dfle to plaintiff's excavating into the spoil originally deposited on diis property. His Worship held that the defendant was liablo tor tlift damage done,' but he considered that the amount claimed by tho plaintiff (JilOfl) was in excess of tho damago done. He"allowed'".£2s, with costs ill Is. against the defendant. -CLAIM jPOIt -WAGES - DISALLOWED. i'Dn' A'. 'M.Arthur, S.M.; gave- reserved judgment in the ease of ltobort Irvine v. Abel and Pickering, cap manufacturers, in w'hich tho plaintiff claimed' tho sum of ,£1 for wages payable by the defendant for three days/ending. February 28, 1013, and plaintiff' further claimed the sum of JC2 for one. week's wages in lieu of notice or alternately for damages for wrongful dismissal. The plaintiff was an employeo of the defendant. The evidence, stated his Worship, was that the plaintiff had notified the defendant of his intention of starting' business on his own account, and the defendant decided to keep plaintiff on until lie was ablo, to carry -out his intention. The defendants then tendered for the supply of 5000 caps for the Territorials, and the plaintiff had said that, he. was not going. ti> tender for the caps. On the day on. which tenders were to be received, at the Drill Hall plaintiff asked for leave, which was granted. When one'of the defendants arrived at the Drill Hall to give in his tender he met plaintiff'coming out, and the latter-admitted that lie had just put in n tender for ihe supply of the caps. His Worship 'held that the plaintiff did not treat tho defendants in a straightforward manner and lie considered -that they were justified in. summarily dismissing him. Judgment would be for defendants.. . Mr. Ward appeared for the defendants and' Mr. Levvey appeared for the plaintiff. JUDGMENTS IN DEFAULT. ' ' Judgment was given for plaintiffs in tho following undefended eases:—J. Jacobs v; W. YV! Meech, J21105., costs 75.; Wellington City Council v. Samuel Free, .£lO 3s. Gd., costs 175.; D.I.C. v. H.'Wynn Wil-; liams, 18s. 2d., costs 55.; Chas. Printzen v. Leslie Brown, £i 10s. Id., costs 75.; M.-.M. F. Luckie and C. W. S. Cox v. Robert .Walker, XIO'2 17. 10d., oosts ■£?>; Dunedin and Suburban Mutual Money Club, Ltd., v. Albert AVm. Stanley, £1 Os. Gd., costs J3l 3s. Gd.; Wellington City Council v. Peter Heyes, J3B Gs. 3d., costs Bs.; same v. Edward Blooinlield, XI 135., costs Bs,; same v. Catherine Maria 'Bloomfield, n 17s. 7d., costs 8«.; Francis Holmes v. Harry Jane, .JCS 10s., costs 18s. 6d.; Autou 10. Amundsen v. Martin M'Govcrn, - -Cit Gs.; costs 10s.; Public Trustee v, Peter M'Guilhau, XI 125.. costs 55.; Van Stavcren Bros. v. A. K Ekstest, Xl 4 l.'ls, ■Id., costs 155.; same v. A. E.- Williams, costs 3s. v ■■ JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. H. L. Jenkins was ordered to pay T, Shields .Kt 13s. by April 15, and John Kopata to pay Wenara l'arata J!52 Gs 4'd. by April 15.