MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2137, 1 May 1914, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

FIRE IN A THEATRE.

TWO FILM CONCERNS AT LAW.

Two picture firms figured in a civil claim, in .the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, beforo Mr. W. G. iiiddell, 5.M../Tho case was one in which the Universal :Film Supply Company, of .Wellington,'film importers, proceeded against tho Strand Picture Company, Ltd., kinematograph exhibitors, Tauniarunui, for the sum of £109 7s. 6d. Mr. A. Wl Blair appeared for tho plaintiff company, and Mr. T. Young for the defendant company.' The. statement of claim set out that,' on or about February 19, 1914, tho Universal Company agreed to hire to the Strand Picture Company 7500 feet of film', valued at £109 7s. Gd. It was made a condition that tho Strand Company should make good any: damage by. fire. ,or otherwise, and. that, tho . Universal Companyishould bo tho assessors of such damage., The film was destroyed by'fire at Tawnarunui on February 21, whilo in defendants' possession, and plaintiffs had demanded payment for it but had been refused.. ■ ■ . Mr.-Blair explained that the Universal Supply Picture Company hired out films to theatres on the oxpretn understanding that such films were hired at the. risk of tho company that took them. Tho film in question was tho first, supplied to this theatre... "After they had had it a day or two," said Mr; Blair, "thoy set alight to it, and burnt tho whole lot of it.!'-— i Mr. Young: On purpose? Mr. Blair: N'o, not'on purpose, but this should not have happened. Mr. Blair proceeded to explain that films, though highly intlammable and subjected to heat, were elaborately safeguarded against catching fire by accident. There were only two causes that would lead to a film catching fire. These. wore a defective machine, or careless operation. The defence was that, according to the lav/ of baUments, a bailee is not liable for anything thai may happen to the article which he hires, unless such mishap results; from negligence. Mr. Young submitted that there lind been no negligence in this cast?, and wont on to state that recent authorities showed that the bailee need only take ordinary cn.ro of an article to bo immune from claim 1 . He therefore asked for a nonsuit. The Magistrate remarked that be was not iireparod to grant a nonsuit without considering the matter. 'Kvidenro was then called for both sides, and; the Magistrate reserved his decision.

SECRET COMMISSION

A claim arising out of what was alleged to be a secret commission was heard before Mr. 1). G. A. Cooper, S.JI. \\\- M'Goldrick, civil servant, of Wollington, proceeded against William Nicol, painter, of this city, for the sum of £1 19s. 6d., alleged to have been received by defendant as secret commission while acting as' plaintiff's agent in papering a house. Defendant denied tho allegation of acting as agent to plaintiff, stating that tho relationship between them was that of tradesman and client.

Judgment was &iven for plaintiff for tlio amount claimed. Mr. J. J. M'Grntli appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. H. L. Machell for defendant.

• GIFT OR LOAN? A civil claim arising out of a loan of money was heard before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M. Tho plaintiff jn the claim was _ Charles H. Stephens, a teacher of singing; who sought to recover from Harry Beresford Peers the sum of £6, as amount lent in two sums of £5 and £1. Defendant said that he had supposed the first sum (£5) was a gift. Judgment was given, for plaintiff for the amount claimed,- with costs £1 16s.

MivG. H. Fell appeared on behalf "of plaintiff. MAINTENANCE CLAIM SUCCEEDS. Reserved judgment was delivered by Mr. W. G. Hiddcll, S.M., in tho maintenance case M. Phillips v. H. G. Marshall, in which plaintiff claimed £82 os. 6d., as arrears of maintenance for plaintiff's child at the rate of 7s. 6'd. per week. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs £10 14s. At the hearing Mr J. F. W. Diokson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. P. W. Jackson for defendant.

DEFAULT DEBTORS' LIST. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following undefended civil cases:—F. W. P.etherick v. Wm. Arthur Edwards, £4 12s. lid., costs 125.; Green and Davis v. Potete Ngperi, £3 10s; 9d., costs iij.; ' Commercial Agency v. F. S. Reynolds, £3 195., costs 125.; same r. F. de/8.-Austin, £8 3s. 6d., costs £116s. 6d.; Wellington Buildjng Trades'. Labourers' Union v. James Ruddle, £1 Is. 6d., costs 55.;. J. J. Boyd, jun., v. Denis Mahoney, £9 Bs. 6d., costs £1.75. 6d.; C. Pr.»tt'and Co. \.A. Nicholl,'£3l,, costs' £2 165.; J. Myers and'Co.,v. ,J. D. Proffitt, £20 11s. 4d., costs £3 Is.; Joseph Dwyer v. W. H.' Edwards, £1 4s. 6d.j costs 55.; Veitch and Allan v. H. J, Sexton, £1 3s. 10d., costs-os.; ."Dairyman and Farmers' Journal" v. W. J. Short, £3, costs £1; ■samev. E.'Shee Evelyn, £13, costs £1 10s. 6d.; George Howard v.-Ai H. Piper, £2 75. : 6d., costs 10s.; sanio, v. Mrs. A. Kennedy, £12 Bs. 6d., costs.£llos. Gd.; Windsor -Manufacturing, Co.' v, Frank Derrick, £2 Bs., costs 10s. ;■ Watt and Shennan v.- F. Harding,, £1; costs ss.'; Alcock and , ,Co.,\Ltd., v. James and M'Ra'e, £3 7s.,'costs 105.,; Tripe and Ellis- v. G.. L. Martin, £2 175., costs 10s.; Henry Wright v. George.Pugh, £5 14s. 4d., costs £1 3s.' 6d.: : Cambridge University Press v. J. S; FawOett, £18, costs £1 10s. 6d,; Cycle,arid Motor Supplies, Ltd., v. H. J;'.Randrupp, £28 13s. 4d., costs £'2 Us.; Sykes. and Co. v. G. Martin, £5 3s. Gel., costs £1 3s. 6d.'; Thomas W. Young and. others V.. John Devereux, £87 17s. 9d., costs £5 3s. 6d. , / v • ' , ■ '."

JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Edward Atmore'was ordered to pay E.'C. Browne and Co., Ltd., £4 ss. by May 14. - . . '",■' CASES. . In respect to police business, the sitting of the Magistrate's Court .yesterday morning "was a , very short one. There were only two eases, and these were cases of.first offending inebriates, both of whom were convicted and discharged.