MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 151, 21 March 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

ACTION FOR SLANDER

NOMINAL DAMAGES AWARDED

Details of an unattractive nature were ventilated in tile Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., hoard an action i'or slander. The plaintiff was Clara Aitken, married woman, who sued Maude Grant, wife of James Grant, of Bouleott Street, Wellington, for .£1(10, alleging that sho had suffered injury to that extent by reason of the delendant falsely and maliciously publisaiuy, at 121 Ghuziiee Street, on the evening ot December 24, 1918, certain reflections on her moral character. "By reason thereof,' saiil the statement of claim, "the plaintiff has lost the society of her friends, sho has been injured in her credit, her reputation has been exposed to odium and contempt, and she has suffered great pain and anguish." Defendant, it was further set. out, had been asked for an apology, but had refused to give it. Mr. Douglas Jackson represented..plaintill and Mr. H. l f . O'Leary appeared for thj defendant.

In reply to Mr. O'Leary, plaintiff said she was separated from her husband, who had commenced to ill-treat her after tho allegations regarding her chastity had been made by defendant. She strenuously denied having been guilty of misconduct with defendant's husband at defendant's lodginghouse. Defendant swore to having observed certain compromising situations at her house in Ghuznee Street. She said she was going to deal with plaintiff in a certain manner, but "Grant stood on his 'dig.' and gave me two black eyes." (Laughter.) His Worship said it had not been proved to his satisfaction that the allegation made by defendant was correct. There was sufficient proof that slander had been committed by the defendant affainst tho plaintiff, but the _ damages claimed were out of all proportion to the position of the defendant and the circumstances surrounding the case. To his mind plaintiff was entitled to very nominal damages. Judgment was given for plaintiff for Xo, with cost Is. . A STREET ACCIDENT.

Decision was given by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., in the case in which Neil Sorensen, waterside worker, of Hopper Street, sued J. O'Brien and Co., carriers, of Wellington, for ,£B3 55., damages as the result of an accident which occurred in the vicinity of the fire brigade station 011 September 20, 1918. Sorensen was proceeding home on his bicycle for dinner on the date_ in question, and when near the fire brigade station in Cuba Street he was knocked down by one of the defendant's lorries, receiving injuries which resulted in his being laid up for some time. Plaintiff maintained that tho accident was due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry in "cutting" the corner at Mercer' Street in front of the fire brigade station. He claimed special damages as follow: .£55, being eleven weeks' wages at the rate of £5 per week; ,£3 3s. doctor's fee; J!3 125., hospital expenses; and ■Ul 10s. for medicine. A 6um of X2O was claimed as general damages. The defence was that plaintiff had the last opportunity of avoiding the collision, and owing to his failure to take advantage of it he was responsible himself for the mishap, even if the driver of the lorry had been going round the corner at too sharp an angle. "I have viewed the scene of tho accident,' 1 ' said Mr. Kiddell, "and am of opinion that had plaintiff been keoping a proper look-out ho must have seen the lorry turning into Mercor Street in time to nvoid it." His Worship thought that the primary cause of the accident was plaintiff's negligence, rather than oarelessness 011 the part of the driver of the lorry.

Judgment was given for defendant with J!5 9s. costs. / At the hearing Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for plaintiff and Mr. E. P. Hay for defendant. MOTOR-CAR SUPPLIES. A claim for .625 9s. 9d. for work dono and materials supplied for a motor-car was made by Magnus, Sanderson and Co., Ltd., against B. and W. Aldred. The car, it was explained, was owned by B. Aldred, and was run by. his brotliors, James and William. It was claimed for the two brothers that they wore the agents of the owner, but tho latter said ho had'leased it to them. Mr. Riddell held that B. Aldred was liable, and judgment, v.as given against him. Tile Court found in favour of tho defendant, W. Aldred. ■Mr. E. M. Beechey appeared for plaintiff, Mr. H. E, Evans for B. Aldred, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary for W. Aldred. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiffs by default was given by Mr. Riddell in the following l undefended cases: C. and A. Odlin Timber and Hardware Co., Ltd., v. Llewellyn Hathaway and Co., 2s. 3d., costs ,£5 175.; Magnus, Sanderson and Co., Ltd., v. V. Hansen, ,£37.85. Bd., costs i! 2 Ms.; Robert Westfiold v. Jack Sanderson, £2 10s., costs 10s.; Lazarus Wolfe Balkind v. Leonard Webb and Prisoilla Webb, =£1 lGs. 3d., costs Bs.; Commercial Agency, Ltd. (assigneesjj and Cvcle and Motor Supplies, Ltd. (assignors), v. R. J. Jones, £012s. 4d,, costs .£l3s. 6d.; A. Knowsley v. N. M. Gunn, .£7 10s., costs XI 3s. Gd.; A. J. Famer and T. H. Sewell v. A. H. S. Lucas, <£13 155., costs 10s. 6d.; A. Knowsley v. V. Stanislaus, .£8 Gs. Id., costs .£1 3s. 6d. OTHER. BUSINESS. The police cases were heard by Mr. E. Pago, S.M.

Lilian Jukes was charged with drunkenness and with having broken the conditions of her prohibition order. Inspector Marsack asked that Jukes be remanded for medical treatment, as she was very shaky. "It's only nerves," exclaimed Jukes; "it's not due to drink. I'd sooner have a sentence than undergo medical treatment." Defendant was remanded until Monday. A fireman named Felix Blaney was fined £2, in default two days' imprisonment, on a charge of having committed a grossly indecent act in Taranaki Street. Charles William Price was remanded until Monday on a charge of stealing a bog of potatoes, valued at 55., the property of Wong AVali. Bail was allowed iu the sum of J!10.

Charles W. Martin, licensed' plumber, was proceeded against by the municipal authorities on an information of having cleared a drain without first giving 48 hours' notice, and on a further information of having failed to leave a drain uncovered until tho work which had been dono to it had been inspected by the sanitary inspector. Defendant explained that in respect to the first oaso the matter was one of urgency, and that the breach of tho bylaws in the second instance was due to an oversight. On tho first information defendant was fined £1, with 7s. costs, and 011 the second he was ordered to pay 7s. costs.