MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 246, 11 July 1919, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

OIL LOST ON WHARVES RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HARBOUR BOARD Reserved judgment in the case of Clarke and Go. v. the Wellington Harbour 'Board, a claim for ,£79 3s. lid., damages for alleged negligent storing of 1U casks of oil, -was delivered bv Mr. W. G. Hiddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The oi! was received by the board on behalf of (lie plaintiffs from the steamer Port Lincoln, which arrived in Wellington- on February 1G last. As the board had no shed accommodation available for storing the oil, and the plaintiffs were unable to store it. it was left ou the wharf by the board's offi.cin.ls. The plaintiff's agents knew of the arrival of the oil, but had iiot been able to make any arrangements for storage. His. Worship said that he was satisfied from the evidence that the oil was. landed in moderately cood condition, • and could have been at onco removed by the 'plaintiffs had they had the storage accommodation. However, storage was obtained on March 5, durinff the time the barrels had been left on the wharf. Plaintiffs had requested that the barrels be covered with tarpaulins, but. a servant of the board, said that this could not be done, and urged the plaintiffs to have, the oil removed. When the casks were eventually removed it was found that a great many were leaking, and the carriors had refused to take delivery. Following upon this it was arranged with the board to have the barrels recoopered. This arrangement was curried out, and the casks wero eventually stored. An examination revealed the fact that out of 57 casks of medium motor oil there was a loss of 1.65 per cent., a loss of 1.5 per cent, of heavy oil, .113 per cent, of gas engine oil, and M per cent, of light motor oil. The whole of the loss was not, however, duo to the action of the board m failing to protect the casks from the weather whilst stored on the wharf, but a quantity had been lost during the voyage. The actual proportion could not be ascertained. The plaintiff had been put to expense through recoopering, which would not havo been necessary had the board taken proper care of the oil prior .to its being removed from the wharf. His Worship fixed tho damages at M 2 13s. dd., and (jave judgment for plaintiffs accordingly. Costs ,£8 17s. were allowed. At the hearing Mr. T. Neave appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. T. S. Weston for 'the defendants. WHERE ARE THE CATTLE? A dispute over the ownership of nine head of cattle occupied the attention of Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M., throughout tho day.' The parties at variance were William Sellars Bennett and David B. Carrick, in. partnership as farmers, plaintiffs, and J. M. Arundel, farmer, of Ohui, Wanganui River, defendant. According to 'tho statement of claim the plaintiffs effected a sale of farm stock witlr'the defendant. At the same time there were left on the farm at Ohui nine head of cattle, and it was arranged .between tho parties that the plaintiffs should have the right of removing them should tho defendant fail | to buy them within ft reasonablo time. ,As the sale of these cattlo Tiad not been effected, the plaintiffs in January last instructed one of their farm managors, who knew tho stock, to call on the defendant and arrange for tho removal of the cattle as agreed.' It was alleged that defendant refused to allow the manager t'o remove the particular stock, and ordered him off the premises. The dolondant had been repeatedly requested to allow tho plaintiffs to remove the cattle, but the defendant, it was alleged, refused to. permit, them to do. so. Plaintiffs therefore claimed the value of the cattle,

For the defence it was.submitted that defendant had not at any time refused to allow the cattle to be removed. The nlaintiff Jiad sent a man named Wilson t't get :thV cattle, but defendant objected to him entering'the premises. Counsel's' contention was that no effective demand had been made for the handing over of the cattle. As a matter of fact, defendant had never seen the particular cattle, nor had plaintiff ever shown thein to him. He had a recent roundup, and found that fourteen head of cattle'were missing, and ho could not account for this, At.the conclusion of the evidence His Worship reserved, decision. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. .T. Neave for the defendant. COMPENSATION FOE LOST-FRUIT. Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M., delivered reserved judgment in the ease George Thomas aTid Co. v. the Union Steam Ship Co., Ltd., a claim for £li for- twenty cases of oranges. It appeared that a particular shipment of 'fruit from the islands was condemned, and out of a consignment of thirty cases of oranges for the plaintiffs, twenty cases were short delivered. •. The Magistrate. stated that the spm claimed was the value of the fruit had it been in good condition, and he considered that only nominal damages should be awarded. Judgment would be for ,plaintiff for ,£2 and costs. Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. P. Levi for the defendants. TENEMENT CASES. An unfortunate type of tenement case with some pathetic features was heard bv Mr; F. V. i'razer, S.M. E. Whiteacro proceeded against Mrs. V. Broderick to recover possession of a dwelling, on the grounds that notice to quit had been given, and the plaintiff required the house for his own use. In her evidence the defendant 6aid that 6he had been all over the city, endeavouring to find >a home, but could not even secure a room, as objection was takon to her infant child. She did not wish to part with'her child, and she had to live somewhere. His Worship tendered his sympathy to both parties, and remarked that there was no suggestion that tho defendant was not a good tenant. The plaintiff was also genuinely requiring possession of his house for his own use. It was a difficult case, but one in which an order would have to be granted in conformity with the special legislation. Upon tho Magistrate's suggestion, the plaintiff undertook to assist Mrs. Broderick to find a suitable place. Plaintiff ,was givon an order for possession on July 31; costs •C.I lis. were.also allowed. In another case It. Cooper was ordered to give tip possession .of a tenement to Miss Gertrude Snow by August 7. Judgment was also given for £5 4s. rent, v.ith 10s. costs. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. Mr. W. G. Biddell, S.M., gave judgment for plaintiff by default in the following undefended cases:—Veitch and Allan v. V. Owler,, ,£8 7s. 7d„ costs .£1 3s. lid.; same v. Mrs. M. Sewoll, ' .£7, cvSts £1 As.; WestlandiTimber Co., Ltd., v. Caroline Wallaco, £48 l'Js. lid., costs ,£3 7s. i same v. Andrew Boggs, £Z los., costs 103.; Cycle and Motor Supplies, Ltd.. v. P. Shelton, £i ss. 10d., costs 10s.; H. W. Frost v. George Fowler. £i ss. 6d.. costs 10s.; Novelties Ltd. v. Frederick Marriott. =£2 ss. 9d., costs 10s.; British and Continental Piano Co. v. Cecilia Lanibowin, £2 3s. 3d., costs 10s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. N. P. Noilson was ordered to pay E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd., (lie sum of £U 19s. Gd. by July 31, in default twentyeight days' imprisonment. INSOBRIETY. Before Mr. V. V. Frazer, S.M., Frederick Woodward was lined £i for drunkenness. One first oll'euder was lined a--.