MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 267, 31 July 1918, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

CIVIL ACTIONS AN UNUSUAL CASE ' Tho civil business at the Magistrate's Court yesterday was presided over bvMr. W. G. Biddell, S.At. George Stevenson Jackson, company manager, and his wife, Jean Emelin Jackson, proceeded against Harold Young, commercial traveller, lor the lecovery of ,C 8 Is., being solicitor's fees incurred in obtaining possession of a tenement and rent. Mr, O. C. Mazengarb npneared for the plaintiffs and Mr. \Y. L. jßothenberg for the defendant. Plaintiffs let a furnished house to the defondunt, aud afterwards took proceedings to secure possession of (he premises. Defendant was ordoi'ed to give up posses- , eion by May 16,' and a warrant was issued on May 17, defendaut having failed to conply with tho order. Costs incidental to the issuo aud execution of the warrant amounted to .S3 lis., and these, togetber with a sum of M 10s. for the use of tho premises from May 2 until May 17, formed.the amount ol tho claim. In opening tho case for the plaintiff, Mr. Mazcngartt said tho action was unttsual. Plaintiffs wore not attempting to recover costs as on Court proceedings, but wero suing for cosls and expenses ■ as for Tho claim for rent in between the date defendant was ordeml to give up possession and' tho time ho actually did vacate the. premises had been eettled, as defendant had paid the amount into Court. Plaintiffs were now claiming costs respecting the -isaua and fixsoution of tho warrant. Mr. Rothenberg argued for the defence that the warrant was not in order,-there-fore any proceedings taken as a result of the issuo of the warrant could not stand. "lli3 Worship said tho order of the Court must stand. The action was really si claim for damages, and plaintiffs wero entitled to obtain certain redress as a result of defendant's failure to obey_ the Court's order. The claim for solicitor's fees could not ho upheld,- as that was really a nutter between solicitor and client. - _ , Judgment was given for plaintiffs for £1 95., and costs 125., together with tho amount paid inco Court. 1 A MOTOR-CAR CONTRACT. A claim for <£50 for services alleged to have been rendered was made by Alfred Edwin Boilings, accountant, of Wellington, against the Zealandia. Motor Importing Company, Ltd., of Wellington. Mr. T. Neave appeared for plaintiff, jin-I Mr. W. F. Ward for tho defendant company. Mr. Neave said tho money was claimed for services rendered in accordance with an agreement under which tho defendant company undertook to puy plaintiff the sum of .£SO on May 1, 11)18, provided tho company, of which plaintiff was secretary, imported tho models of tho Commonwealth Motor Company, of Chicago. A total of 100 ears was to bo ordered, or any less number should tho manufacturers not be able to supply according to tho requisition. Plaintiff contended that his part of tho contract had been fulfilled.

Alfred Edwin Hollings, formerly secretary of the company, said tho conditions entitling hint to the payment of tho money had been complied with, 100 cars having been requisitioned direct from the manufacturers, and 16 indirectly. In reply to the Magistiate witness said that up to May 1 last about 21 cars had arrived in tlio Dominion. . For the defendant Mr. Ward submitted that plaintiff should be nonsuited as; ho had not proved inability on the part of the manufacturers to deliver cars. Mr. Neave said the only condition in the agreement was that the cars should lie ordered, not delivered, before May 1, 1913. John Francis Sinclair, a director of the defendant company, said that tho agreement provded that 100 cars must be sold before tho money would be paid. During tho time plaintiff was with the firm four cars were sold, three being disposed of by plaintiff. Gilbert H. Lister, also a director of the' company, said that plaintiff had hot rendered services to the company for which he claimed .£SO. Albert Wylie, solicitor tq the company, stated that the cars in question ceased to arrive because of a guarantor of tho company having withdrawn his guar-' antee. His Worship reserved his decision. RENOVATION~OF AN HOTEL. Painting and papering work at the Taita Hotel in the month of August, 1917, formed tho subject of a dispute between Thomas A. Wells, painter and , paperhanger, of Wellington, and Myra Campbell, licensee of tho Taita Hotel. Plaintiff (claimed the sum of ,£33 10s. Mr. V. B. Willis appeared for plaintiff end Mr. T, Young for defendant. For the plaintiff it was stated that when the workmen went out to commence tho job they were told, as a result of instructions received from Mr. J. J. M'Grath, to do only; a limited amount of painting and papering, but that defendant gave instructions to have the whole place renovated. Evidence was given by two of plaintiff's employees that Mrs. Campbell said she was going to pay half tho cost. Mr. Young' said the point was whether' <-lie painters wero employed by Mi's. Campbell or Mr. M'Grath. Defendant had refused to take tho hotel until it

was placed in proper repair. She saw | Ur. M'Grath and a Mr. Brown, who wore both interested ia tlio place, and in order .lo ensure that she should tako over the premises without any delay it was agree J that repairs should be carried out. Under tho terms of the ten<incy (iel'endant had no obligation to paint the hotel until tho third year after blio had entered into occupation. Defendant paid a sum of £500 for the goodwill ol the hotel, and the rental was fixed nt .CIO per week-. in the course of her evidence defendant caul that when the work was commenced she did not understand she had lo pay half the cost. Sho was under the impression that -Mr. M'Grath and Mr. Ilroivn would pay for tiie work. Defendant also remarked that she had secured a reduction of -ft! 10s. in the rental of the hotel. Tho case was adjourned until August 13 in ordor to givo plaintiff an opportunity of calling further evidence. DISPUTE REGARDING SPECTACLES. Hart Spear, optician, of Wellington, was sued bv J. R. Little, carpenter, of Wellington, for the sum of i:l ss. tid. in connection with a pair of spectacles which "wore alleged to be iins&tififflctory. After hearing - evidence Uis Worship nonsuited plaintiff. Defendant was represented by Mr. A * W. Blair. . UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for plaintilVs in tins following undefended cases:—'W. Booth and Co., Ltd., v. Andrew Beid, .2s. Id., costs 12s. ; Alice Elizabeth Ta'.um v. I'. Butler -£2.1 12s. fid., cosla Jit as.; J. Campbell v. J. W. Thompson. .£2 13s. lid., cosls 10s.; .Tames Smith, Ltd., v. John H. Morgan.£2 15s. 7d., costs 10s.; James Webster and W. .1. Martin (trustees of ths Into Dr. Martin) v. John Boyd, JJI 195., costs (is.; Wellington Woollen Manuwctunng Co., Ltd., v. Martin G. Olds, M ss. M., costs 10s.'; C. D. Henry v. W. R. Aelnns, .£2l Is. costs £2 lis.; Hope Gibbons, Sons, and J. B. Clarkson, Ltd., H. Allen, lis., costs only; Makara County Council v. Alfred Lindsay, £V 2 lis. 5d., cos's .-CI 10s. Gd.: Te Aro 1 urnismng Co. v. Charles Ferguson, Jil 2s. bd., costs 7s.

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. On judgment summonses Francis Hurman Wiitiams was ordered to pay Lankshears, Ltd.,' the sum of .£U 55.. by August 13, in default 14 days' imprisonment; J. Wareham to pay T. Barraclough M 19s. by August 13, in default six days imprisonment; aud H. C. Young to pay G. W. Harty lis. 3d. by instalments of £1 per month.