MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 208, 22 May 1918, Page 10

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

POLICE AND CIVIL CASES

CLAIM AGAINST HARBOUR BOARD Mr. AV. G. Riddell, S.M., was on tho bench at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, and dealt with tlio police mid civil cases. Curl Aiigusl Vol.erson was rhargml thai on May 20 he did.assault policn eonstable "Robert Binns while in the execution of his duty; also, that on the same date ho did assault one Shum Hoy. Mr. 11. P. O'leary, who appeared for the defondant, asked for a remand to May 29, which was granted, and bail was fixed at £~b and two sureties of £?,0 each.

Alfred Henry ITiclcson was charged with failing io provide his wife, Kate Hickton. with adequate maintenance. Mr. H. f. O'Leary appeared for the defendant. The defencn wn« that Hiokson was unable to continue the old rate of .£lO per month, and offered ,£(i 10s. After hearing the statement of-defendant, the Magistrate fixed the maintenance at £i 10s. per month, first payment to be made on June- 10, and thereafter on the tenth day of each month; past maintenance of M to be paid forthwith. CLAIM , FOE LOSS OF GOODS. A bale of soft goods, ex a home steamer, which it was alleged had been tampered witli and ■ some of the , goods extracted, formed the subject of a claim for .£23 Ss. 6rt. by J. L. Morrison, indent iiUent. against Hip Wellington Harbour Board. Mr. A. AV. Biair appeared for thn claimant, and in outlining the cafe said the bale in question was an ordinary julfi or canvas ojie, Eewn np with black threads and delivered to the Harbour Board by the steamer. The Harbour Board gave a clean receipt for the goods, so that the bale was received intact. When the carter tvas about to take delivery of the bale it was discovered that the bale had been tampered! with, and some of the poods removed. The bag had been slit open and resewn with white thread. The invoice value of the goods stolen, which comprised silk mouses and girls' costumes, was .£ls Ms. '-'!.,'initl duty and sinenses to'nllrd J.~ J ss. 2d., making the total of ,£23 ss. Gd. the amount of the claim. Counsel contended that the onus rested upon the Harbour Board official to explain what had been done to the bale, and, further, to show that whatever tampering occurred had been done in such a way as to absolve the board from liability. Evidence was given by the claimant and others in support of counsel's statement. 1 Mr. T. Shailer AVestou. who appeared for the Harbour Board, contended that it was for the plaintiff to show that one of the Harbour Bonrd's employees had stolon the goods from tho package, and th'at the Harbour Board had been guilty of negligence in employing a person of bad character. The plaintiff had made no allegation of negligence whatever, and counsel therefore held that the plaintiff must be nonsuited. There was, ho said, no regulation to prevent any consignee taking direct delivery of goods f(om the ship, provided he were alongside the wharf when the goods were being landed. Judgment was reserved on tho nonsuit point.

Evidence was given by the wharfinger, Captain Munro, and two nther officials

for the defence, and the Magistrate reserved his decision. JUDGMENT FOB PLAINTIFFS. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following cases:—lzard and Weston v. August Ockerstroin, ,£8 10s. 6d., costs .£1 19s. Gd.; Wallace and Gibson v. William Corcoran, M 3s. 5d., .costs 17?.; Dunlop Eubber Co. v. J. W. Wills, 3s. 3d., costs XI 3s. Gd.; same v. B. Bell and Co., JM ss. 7d., costs 10s.; City Council v. David Victor White £1 18s. 9d., costs Bs.; Konald Thoinaa M'Lenn v. Alan B. Bankin, £5 10s., costs XI 4s. Gd.; Public Trustee v. Courtenay Manning, .£2B 175., costs .£2 Us.; Hope, Gibbons and Sons and J. B. Clarkson, Ltd., v. G. H. Healey, J:8 10s. 2d., costs Bs.; E. Reynolds and Co. v. A. lioag, £3 18s. Bd., costs Bs.; Jackson and Co. v. Teo Tipene, M 9s. lid., costs 155.; W. A. Brown v. A. E. l J udney, JC7 Is. 1<1.,. costs ,£1 3s. Gd.; Wellington Musicians' Union v. Mrs. L. Honk £1 25.. costs 10s. (against hw separate estate); Hope. Gibbons and Sons, Ltd., and J. ]i. Clarkson, Ltd., v. AValter J. Marah, .£l3, costs las.; Joseph Boucher and Co. v. Harry Button, £!, costs £1 3s. Gd.; British General Electric Co., Ltd., v. Bnstin and Avery, .£2 .'is. 9d., costs £1 75.; City Council v. Arthur Julino Neil60ii, £o 13s. 5d., costs 10s.; Samuel Free v. H. Edwards, £1 7s. Gd., costs £1 3s. 6d. .

LANDLORD AND TENANT. William Murphy, professional ratcatcher in the employ of the Wellington Harbour Board, proceeded against Charles Mardell, of Wellington, labourer, to recover the sum of JE26, for alleged unlawful entry into plaintiff's premises, and ii further ,£25, in respect to the use of certain alleged defamatory words by the defendant regarding the plaintiff. Tho claim was thus for ,£sl. Mr. ft. M. Beechey appeared for Die plaintiff and Mr. 1 , . W. Jackson for the defendant. The plaintiff stated that he was in occupation of tho premises for about four years and received a week's notico to .quit The first thing ho knew then was when he came buck from work one evening lie found tlie premises had been entered and the hinges of the door had been removed. Witness further stated that defendant's son used the alleged defamatory words, and defendant was present at the time. He could not Bay whether tho defendant used the words also. The defence was u denial of the uss of the words, and evidence was given by the defendant, his wife, and eon. The Magistrate held that the words were used in tho heat of tho moment, and he thought that affected tho amount that should bo awarded plaintiff. The liotico to quit was not legal in fchit it was not lpng enough. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £i with costs XI 16s.