MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 281, 16 August 1918, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

CIVIL ACTIONS LOSS OF POTATO DIGGER "Reserved judgment was delivered by ! Mr. W. G. liiddell, S.M., in the case 11. j 13. M'Gowan v. the Huddart, Parker Steamship Company, Ltd., a claim lor .£ls 53. for the alleged loss of ft potato digger. Plaintiff said that in April, 1913, he sold a Hoover potato digger to tho principal of tho Gatton State I'arm. Queensland, and through his agents delivered it to (lie defendant company at Auckland for shipment to the purchaser at Brisbane. Instead of being carried to Brisbane tho defendant company unshipped tho digger at Sydney, whero it remained owing to tho defendant company being unaware of its ownership or destination, and the consignee was not j notified that it had been stored at Sydney. Plaintiff alleged that the detendailt company did not notify him of tho nondelivery of the digger within a reasonable time, and that later tho defendant company wrongfully eold and delivered it to a purchaser. , His Worship said that the defendant company's Sydney office advised its Auckland office that after holding tho digger for nearly twelve months it had disposed of rt, but was arranging with the buyer to liavo the sale cancelled_ in. view of the owner of the digger having been discovered. Plaintiff was not prepared to take tho digger back, and m Octobcf, 1914. liis agents made a claim on the defendant company for JMO, which it declined to pay. 'the question for decision wa6 whether tho defendant company was liable for failing to deliver the digger at Brisbane, and if so wlmt was tho amount of damage to which plaintiff was entitled. In view of tho circumstances under which the sale was made, and had the defendant secured its cancellation i promptly, and given plaintiff an opportunity to recover his property, which was refised, His Worship did not think plaintiff had established his right to be awarded the full amount of damage claimed, bui he was entitled to some damages for tho temporary loss of his property, and tho opportunity to disposo of it during its temporary loss. . Judgment was given for plamtin for .£l2, with cost £2 lis. At tho hearing Mr. M. Myers appeared for plaintiff and Mr, A. W. Blair for the defendant company.

' WORK ON A. MOTOR-CAR. Percy Shelton, motor engineer, of Petone, proceeded against Neil Doneghuc and Co., Ltd., coach and motor builders, of Wellington, on a claim for ,£ll 'imbalance of account alleged to be due for work dono and material supplied in connection with the repair of a motor-car. Mr. J. Scott appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. M. Dalo for the defendant. The defence was that the time spent ij}' repairing was excessive. _ u . After hearing evidence His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for X 9 is., with costs i£3.

'PURCHASE OF A BUSINESS. A claim for .£34 Os. sd, for alleged - shortages in stock and faulty valuation was made by Ella Lamb, taxi proprietress, of Wellington, against William Beattie. grocer, of Wellington. Mr. R. A. Howie appeared for the plaintiff, but defendant did not appear. On behalf of the plaintiff it was stated that the action arose out of an agreement for the purchnse by the plaintiff of the defendant's grocery business. The contract was hastened, and the purcliaso money paid beforo tho'plaintiff had time to ascertain whether she was talcing over 1 the business at a fair valuation, because defendant stated he was proceeding to camp immediately. As a matter of fact, he did not do so. Defendant had also stated that he would refund any money overpaid through over-pricing or mistakes in stocktaking, or valuation. Defendant had refused to make any refund, however, and it transpired that tho valuation was excessive. r Judgment was given tor plaintiff lor X3l 10s. 5d., with costs JI3 13s.

AN UNDEFENDED CASE. Judgment by default for Ba. costs was given by Mr. Riddell in tho caso of Osmond and Son (N.Z.), Ltd., v. J. •'!. Crosby. POLICE BUSINESS. A soldier named Jqhn William Lucas was charged before Mr. Riddell with drunkenness and with the breach of n prohibition order. On the charge oi drunkenness accused was ordered to be handed over to the military authorities, and on the second charge he was fined 40s. - . Two first offenders for insobriety were convicted and discharged, and another was ordered to forfeit the amount of his bail. 20s.