MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 266, 6 August 1919, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

JUDGMENT FOR WHARF LABOURER

IN ACTION AGAINST SHIPPING

COMPANY

An interesting reserved judgmont was delivered by Mr. W. G. Kiddell, S.M., yesterday in tho case Victor Owler v. thodluddart Porker Shipping Co., Ltd.— a. claim for Mi Os. 10d. damages for injuries received on July 25, 1918, through being injured by a pieco of coal. Tho claim was made up of ,£29 16s. zialf wages for eleven weeks' loss of employment, £t ■Is. hospital expenses, and ,£sl) general damages.

The evidence given at Lhe hearing of tho claim was that the plaintiff was engaged in trimming coal on the defendant company's steamer Ulimaroa, and in order to get to tho tknke-rs he descended a ventilator. Whilst going down a lump of coal fell down tho ventilator and struck plaintiff on the- head, causing him sovoro injuries.- Plaintiff alleged that the accident was the result of negiigenco on the part of the defendant company's servants in failing to place a grating over tho mouth of the ventilator and in failing to provide reasonably safe baskets for the cairriago of coal along the oxerhead tramway. In February last plaintill' was nonsuited in an action arising out of tho same cause, on Iho ground of want of proof of negligence on the part of dcfen.da.ut company and contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. \ In tho now action additional evidence- had teen called and new facts had., been, sworn to as existing at the time of tho accident. It was now stated that the protective grating was not tree to be v.sed by plaintiff or any workman 'vho ndght have followed. It had been lashed back, but by whom was not disclosed. Plaintiff said ho did not notice the grating when ho commenced to descend, an-1 it was strange- that it should have escaped his attention. The ventilator,, however, was the only means of accms to tho bunkers, and His Worship held that a duty lay upon the defendants to provide means whereby men passing through tho ventilator would be reasonably safe from falling coal. v When Hie accident occurred the grating was tied to.the skylight and was an insufficient protection. It was tho duty of tho company to seethat the passage through the ventilator was safo when tho men were descending to work. His Worship did not think that contributor}' negligence on the part of the plaintiff had been proved, as he could not foresee the falling of a large lump of coal-.. On the other.hand the falling of coal from the overhead trolley during coaling, operations was a matter which should have been foreseen and provision inado by'the defendant company to prevent it getting iuto iho open ventilator. The means provided uy tbe defendant company to prevent such an aceidont were deficient, and defendants must bo held liable. Judgment would l» for tho amount claimed and costs .£7 Ms. At the hearing Mr. P. J. O'Kegan appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. A. W. Blair for the defendant company. . MISREPRESENTATION i3Y A ■ LANDLORD. i False representations by a landlord to obtain possession .rf a house were alleged in an action heui'd by Mr. W. G. Kiddcll, S.M. The action wasfboth unusual and interesting.' Tho plaintiff was Frank Gomey, settler, and tho defendant John Campbell, carrier, of Wellington. Tho plaintiff alleged that he was in possession of certain promises in Rintoiil Street as a tenant at a weekly, rental of 255. Under tho War Regulations plaintiff was entitled to continue in occupation on the conditions expressed in-the Act. In January of this year plaintiff said that defendant, represented to him that his daughter was about to be carried and he required the- premises for her occupation. The plaintiff on this understanding- gave up possession- and was.compelled to acquire other premises for his wifo and family at an increased rental, and in addition-was put to the ' expense 'of sniffing. 'He alleged .that the representations inado by the defendant were false and Miat they were made by the defendant with the intention of inducing plaintiff to give up possession ■ of. the house, 'iho plaintiff therefore claimed £id damages. -.... It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that there had not been any.misrepresentation. Plaintiff ivad admitted that he thought 'the representation was false in the first intanee, and if he a>'ted as a result of sdeh representation "no had done so on his own responsibility. It was further submitted'that the plaintiff could not iccover damages from the defendant, and that the damages claimed had not been sustained. . ■ In tho course- , of his judgment His Worship said that .at the -present time, particularly when there wns such a snortago of houses, it was a most strious thing for a landlord to order a; tc-nant to leave unless there were very good reasons for such action. In tho present case plaintiff- had a, claim, but the amount claimed was excessive Judgment would bo for plnintiff for -£5 and costs; Mr T Neave appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. C. B..O'Dounell for tho defendant.

CLAIMS FOR POSSESSION. Arthur Ernest Otw'ny, land agent (Mr. Hoggard), was nonsuited : -n his olaini for possession of a tenement and £5 inesno profits against Mrs. Edith i3assclt, Island Bay. On the application of tho plaintiff tho claim was amended to one ot trespass, plaintiif alleging that defendant lia.il entered into possession without permission. Defendant on the other hand said that tho original tenant was wing out of possession, and she , .approached the plaintiff as to taking up the tenancy, but ho said there was some tronblo which ho thought could bo overcome. Defendant subsequently entered into nc-go. tiations with an agent and took possession, and the plaintiff accepted, rent from her. Sho would not sign the agreement as sho alleged tho plaintiff failed to carry out certain repairs. His Worship held that he could not issue, an order tor ejectment on tho grounds of trespass, and nonsuited the plaintiff on both tho claims and allowed defendant 4e. expenses. Walter Keys, a. returned soldier, asked tho Court to give, him an order for possession of a tenement at present occupied by Mrs. Isabella Eado. rinintift said ho returned from Uio front ten mouths ago, and in spito of repeated roquests ho had not been ablo to obtain possession. Defendant said sho had been imablo to secuie another house, but Mr IVe S.M., directed her to give up iwwession within fourteen (lays and to pay £2 7s. costs as well as.arrears of W. Tresscr was ordered to give up posession of n tenement to Edith Psiyne and to i>ay .£5 2s. !>d. arrears of rent within three weeks. Defendant' was also 'ordered to pay M 19s. costa. , .

ADMISSION -.TO SUNDAY CONCERT. In order to give the defendant an opportunity to defend tho prosecution, Air. k Page, S.M., adjourned the case,. Inspector Doylo against Hugh Ca llaglian, assistant secretary to tho tYellm;,<ton Waterside. Workers' Union, _ who, was charged with unlawfully making a ciinrgo for tho occupation of a seat in the \\ e-l----lington Opera Houso on the occasion of a Sunday concert given by the union .on Sunday, Juno 1 Inst. '• Mr "W. J. M'EUlowney, who appeared for tho prosecution, first of all quoted tho municipal by-law which required authority of tho City Corporation lor tho holding of such concerts, and then quoted a portion of By-law No. 373 which directed dial no chiu'go could bo made tor admission to any such concert, line latter bv-law was one of tho conditions upon which iK-rmission to hold Sunday concerts \ns "minted. Counsel then drew Ms Worship's attention to the advertisements published in tho local papers, winch con-, tiiincd tho following-:" "ISo wise and secure tickets at Hiimott's confectionery shop, Grand-Onera House, or at Clms. liegg and Co.'s Manners Street," anil 'Subscribers' tickets obtainable at Burnetts confectionary eliop, Grand Opera House, or at Chas. Begg and Co.'e, Manners Street." , , At this stago Hi 3 Worship remarked that tho summons was only served on Monday, and ho would prefer that the defendant should have an onportumty ot defending the ciw-o should be. so desire. Counsel raised no objection, and the cue was set down for hearing on Tuesday next.

dealt with by Mr. E. Pago, S.M., aa follows:—

Charles Hart was fined .£2 end costo is. for driving a motor-car at niiiht without lights.

H. L. Friend was fined .£1 and costs 7s. on one charge, and was ordered to pay- 7s. costs on a second information charging him with having left a motorcar unattended in a city street. li'or Living ridden a motor-cycle along tho Hutt Road without lights, Albert Beu was fined £1 and costs is. >. Defendant told tho constable that ho did not think that, it was time to light up. Harry Langdon and Hugh Inglis were fined jG2 each and costs 7s. for driving motor-cars at night without lights. A fine of ss. and costs was imiMsed on James Purchase for having driven a liorso and cart without lights along the Hutt Road. Defendant explained that he ,was detained in town and had no lamps. Hβ usually got to his homo at the Hutt before dark.

G. Slatmard offered no explanation for driving a vehicle along the Hutt Koad at night-tinie withoiit lights, and was fined £1 and costs 7s.

On a charge of having loft a motorcycle in Tasman Street at night without a proper light attached.--Herbert llarris was fined 10s. and caste. similar penalty was imposed on John Smith for neglecting to display a tail light on his motor-car. Both explanations were to the effect that acetylene Ughts were left burning and had apparently burned out. W. JI. Sluuid, who left his ■ motor-car without lights attached standing in Waring .Taylor Street, was fined ,£1 and eosta 7s.

.Tohn P. Topp was Sned £1 and 7s.

costs for driving Uis motor-car across a ■ street intersection at a greater epeed than eight miles an hour. ( Ebonezer Woodridge was lined & an<3 costs for driving a. motor-car along tlif Hutt Road at un excessive rate of spsed, Eric O'Sullivan was fined £1 and cost* 7s. for allowing a horse to wander. To) like' offences Harold Starr was fined ~) and costs and Frank Mozzola. was fmec IDs. ami costs. Churchill Peach was convicted and ordered to pay posts 7s. for driving j motor-eyclo which had- no horn or bell attached. • A fine of 10s. and costs 7s. was imposed on G. Webb for leaving a. horse and cart unattended ou a public highway. It was explained that'the defendant was engaged in moving a eafe from the. vehicle into tho Bank of New Zealand. _and it was necessary to leavo the vehicle on hand in order to use certain ropes and other tackle. For failing to register his dog, Henry Day ivas fined 10s. and the amount of tho registration fee. Jaines Webb and Henry Richard Gray, similarly charged, wore fined like amounts, but they had sinco had their doge registered. Alexander Pollock was fined XI for a. likeoffence, us he had not sinco registered his dog. For allowing stock to wander Norman Olsen was convicted and ordered to pay costs 75., William Adams was fined ss. and costs, Roland Eager was lined 10s. and costs. J. B. Patterson was fined 10s. and costs on each of two charges, and a previous offender, John Telford, was fined £3 and costs. . '

' JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. Mr W. G. Kiddell, S.M., gave judgment by default in the following undefended civil cases: William Campbell, Ltd. v. John Ash, £1 is. lOd., costs 125.; same v. Maud Webster Jones, £6 lGs. Id., coste £1 3s. Cd.

POLICE BUSINESS. (Before Mr. E. Page, S.M.) On a charge of assaulting Police Constable Peter. Watters whilst in the execution of his duty Edward Churcbers was fined £2, in default seven .lays imprisonment. When charged accused said: "I v.ns ■drunk—l did not' know what I wu doing." The constable gave evidence to the effect that he arrested tho accused in Manners Street for drunkenness, and on the way to the station accused struck him a violent blow on tho left jaw with his closed fist. For drunkenness the accused was fined os. , Percy-"Watson was fined XI for procuring, jiquor during the -currency of hiJ prohibition order,' andoor-;n r -; ;Tβ of drunkenness was fined ss. Three first offenders for im>u .;. .y were fined ss. each, and a fourth was faued. 10s.