MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 139, 7 March 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

FIGHT ON THE WHARF

SAILOR GOES TO HOSPITAL

Two sailors named Henry Lowry and Andrew Popp engaged in a fight on the Queon's Wharf 011 Wednesday afternoon, and the result was disastrous for Popp, who had to be removed to the Hospit.il. The sequel ensued at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Lowry was charged with having occasioned a breach of the pence. Acting-Sub-liispector Emerson explained thai; there was a similar charge against Popp, but the latter was not in a fit condition to appear. The fight had Ijten arranged by mutual consent and Popp got the worst of the deal. He was not seriously injured, but was badly.knocked about. The combat was fair except t.liat Lowry was wearing a ring, which cut the other man's face very severely. Lowry alleged that Popp called him a "sqiureheaded German." Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M., who was on tills Bench, pointed out k> Lowry that to engage in a fight in a public place was an offence, and he fined him £\, in default. 72 hours' imprisonment. The case against' Popp was adjournsd until Monday. CHARGES OF INSOBRIETY. Four first offenders for insobriety were each fined 55., in default 24 hours' detention. One was ordered to forfeit the amount of hie bail, 10s., and another was convicted and discharged on payment of Bs. expenses. CIVIL HATTERS ERECTION OF "A' HOUSE. Reserved judgment was delivered by Mr. W. G. Biddell. S.M., in the case of which Abraham Levi M'Duff, builder, of Hataitai, sued C. J. Bennett, of Kilbirnie, for .the- recovery of ,£l6B 183.. balance of moneys alleged to bo due under an agreement for the erection of a dwellingliouso at Kilbirnie, together with extras amounting to .£BS 18s. Defendant counter-claimed for ,£175, alleging that he had suffered damage to that amount owing to. plaintiff's negligence m carrying out the erection of the dwelling.

His Worship said Hint plaintiff had t.ot 'provided in the specifications that the work would bo carried out under the supervision of an architect, with the result that he had no check upon the quality of materials supplied or the nature of. construction. The evidence showed that defendant on a number of occasions had complained that pla-uvtiff was not adhering to the specifications. The chief defects in plaintiff's wort were faults in connection villi the roof, which leaked in had weather. In "t hie and other matters tho weight of evidence substantiated the defendant's allegations in respect to the plaintiff's failure to carry out his contract. Plaintiff contended that he' had not only fulfilled the contract, but had done extra work and supplied extra material. On the coiintpi-claim judgment was given for defendant • for X!) 2. with .£lO 9s. costs, and on the claim His Worship found for plaintiff for .£22 ss. 4d. for extras, etc.,, with,.£ll posts At tho hearing Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M. F. Luokio for defendant. A. CARRIER'S LIABILITY. The question whether a carrier is liable to make Rood the loss of n package which he has contracted to carry for another person, and which has been mislaid by accident, formed tho subject of a case in which Rupert Norman Uren sued Hugh Matthews for tlfe recovery of i3B 12s. 9d., being the value of a portmanteau witii its contents, which was lost during tho removal of some furniture from MorI sev Street to Shannon Street.

Mr. H. ]?. von Haast appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary for the defendant. 'J'ho question for th» Court's determination was the definition of a common currier. There was no allegation of negligence or dishonesty on the. part of defendant.-, . In the course of evidence it appeared that after part of the journey had been accomplished tho load was found to be too heavy for defendant's horses,, so some of the goods were transferred to •■mother vehicle. It was not proven whothir tho bag was lost after the transfer hud been niado. . Mr. von Haast based his case on a olaim that Matthews was a common carrier. For the defeiico Mr. O'Leary quoted authorities to show that an' expressman plying for hire could not be deemed to com« \vithin the scope of the term. ■ Decision was reserved. ■ UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment'by default- was given bv Mr. W. G. Biddeli, S.M., for plaintiff i'n the following undefended rawos:—Te' Aro Furnishing Co. v. A. M'Nabb, .£2 165., costs Us.; H. C. Faulko v. Samuel Ford, £\ Is., costs 55.; Commercial Asency, Ltd., and' E. W. Mills and Co., Ltd., v. ,T. Kiltinny. .£5 175., costs £\ 3s. (id.; Osmond and. Son (N.Z.), Ltd.. v. W. H. Coldstream. .£2 10u.; costs 135.; Westland Timber Co.. Ltd.. v. S. P. Parsloe, 17s. Bd.. costs 55.: Co;-niercial Agency, Ltd., and 10. W. Mills and Co., Ltd., v. A. Campboll. ,£IG 3s. Hid., costs .CI 10s. 6d.; IT. Baldwin and Co. v. A. Kean, ,£ls 10s. 5d., costs ,£1 10s. 6d. On a judgment summons A. Collins was ordered to pay the Plumbers and Gasfitters" Union £3 6s. by March 20.