SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2730, 27 March 1916, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

CORPORATION MUST PAY

MOTOR-BUS CASE

In th© Supreme Court on Satur- , day morning His Honour Mr. Jus- S1 tico Hosking delivered his re- se served judgment in the civil action Richardson, M'Cabe and Co. v. the Wellington City Corporation, a? £ claim for over £400U for alleged breach . * of contract' in connection with the sup- S ply of motor buses. At the hearing Mr. °; 0. P. Skerrott, K.C., and Mr. T. doling . appeared l for the plaintiffs, while Mr. ? l . /A. Gray, K.C., with him the City Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea) appeared for the f defendant Corporation. I? The history of the case is fairly well ! known in consequence of preliminary law questions, whicli reached the Court of 01 Appeal and the subsequent lengthy hear- i ing in December last and again in February. The plaintiffs are importers of goods, and on February 5, 1914, they tendered for the sale and delivery of G three Tilling-Stevens motor buses to the B Corporation at a price of £3945. Tho M tender was accepted under seal of the M Corporation on April 6, 1914, and a 0 formal contract was drawn upon June M 9, 1914, but was afterwards repudiated H on the ground of misrepresentation. The B plaintiffs claimed to hold the Corpora- S tion to the contract, and to recover the C sale price of £3945, together with a sum V of £57 for extras, ana £160 for deposit paid with interest thereon. _ . By way of defence, the Corporation claimed a right to repudiate the contract on the ground of misrepresenta- fi tion, and on the ground that the wheel f< bases were not according to specification. • - £ ' Some time after the proceedings commenced it was announced that the City \ Corporation, acting on the suggestion j of His Honour, had taken over tho buses J at 10 per cent, on cost, this deal being \ made without prejudice to: the proceedings. • , \ In ,a lengthy judgment, His Honour I reviewed she voluminous. evidence that 1 was taken, besides the enormous amount (. of correspondence' w'liich was connected witji the case. He referred to various differences' of opinion which existed as regards important facts, and. said it was unfortunate that,the case had'been so t long delayed. At least one important f witness was dead, and the others- Jiad f forgotten essential details.,- Regarding the allegation of misrepresentation and fraud, His Honour said l it was not for plaintiffs to disprove, but for defend- < ants to prove, the allegations of fraud, i and in his opinion that had not been , : done.' As to the suggestion that the al- ( teration in the wheel base .nullified the -j contract, His Honour said it was clear , that the Corporation had 1 made arrange- j inents to meet it, and so that defence j i failed also. He was satisfied that _ the •, Corporation had wrongfully repudiated | the contract. Judgment was givon for •tho difference between the amount al--8 ready paid, and £3945 —the amount i originally due under the contract. Costs as on a elainV for £3945 were entered against the' defendants, including conn-' , 1 sol's, fee for .three extra days at £15 . 15s.' ]>or day; second .counsel's fe'o for j four days at £7 7s. per day, £15 15s. : for affidavit of discovery, and £10 10s. , for inspection, besides the usual dis- : biirsements and witnesses' expenses. The Corporation was allowed £5 ss. and : disbursements on the motion for a . special jury. ; i LIGHTING UOMHAOT. His Honour Mr.'justice Hosking also delivered judgment in the case of Henry Thompson Johnson,. Frasertown, Wai- . roa, settler, against Charles W: Martin, Tory Street, Wellington, plumber. Tho : defendant agreed to. instal on plaintiff-,s property a Norvic gas lighting, heating, aha cooking plant for £128, and guaranteed t'hao. it would be satisfactory. : He also contracted to supply . some '' patent flooring. PlaihtifE alleged that the lighting and flooring proved to be unsatisfactory, and- that in January, 1914, defeudant agreed to eiect an up- , to-date. electric lighting plant in exchange for the gas "plant, oh payment of an additional £35. '-It was alleged that defendant failed to carry out that agreement, and plaintiff sued Martin for £180 16s. 8(1., ; the value of the plant and damages. His Honour found that neither the lighting -plant nor.the flooring was completely satisfactory, and gave judgment for £145 16s Gd., with costs. Defendant was given tho right ' to take awav all movable portions of tho plant installed. ' At the hearing Mr. A. \V. Blair appeared for plaintiff and Mr. T. Neave for defendant.