MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 95, 16 January 1920, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

CIVIL CASES

CLAIM FOR STORE DAMAGE

■Mr. E. Page, S.M., presided -at the Magistrate's Court yesterday and heard the civil cases.

Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following undefended debt cases: Veitch and Allan v. I. Donaldson, 225., costs 55.; Tripo and Ellis v. W. E. fee, £\2 is. Gel., costs 31s. Gd.; Combined Buyers, Ltd. v. Albert J. Gibbs, 2<s. (id. costs onlv; sum« v. J. H. Richards, £15 155., costs ,£3 (is.; Charles J. Salter and jr. E. Fitzgerald v. E. L. Hormbrook, 17s. costs onlv; ,T. Fitzgerald Ltd., v. A. E. Exlcv, .£5 1-fs. Gd., costs £[ 13s. Gd.; L. W. Balkind v. Emily Kendrick, £5 lGs., costs 325. Gd.; Vacuum Oil Co. v. Kect and Page, JUS 18s. -Id., costs £3 Gs.; Dominion Clothing Co. v. J. Dwyer, £1 55., costs 10s.; E. Eeynoids and Co., Ltd. v. E. Keating, .SIS lis lid., costs 155.; Browne and Yeats v. Thomas Dalton. M Us. Gd., costs Us.; Dr. Oscar Jacobsen v. F. Herring, £1 7s. Gd., costs 53.; S. G.' ltadford v. K. J. Nesbit, £1 lis. 2d., costs 10».; Louisa Berry v. J. Gilmonr, M, costs 25.; Catherine Tier v. Henry 'Adams, ;E1 55., costs ss. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Judgment summons cases were dealt with as follow: J. D. Hcmiinjr was ordored to pay the Wellington Gas Company the sum of .£1 13s. 3d. forthwith, in default two days' imprisonment, warrant to' be suspended for one month.; jV. C. Blake to pay Robert W. Jones £K 12s. 7d. forthwith or go to prison for 15 days, warrant to he suspended so long as £;i per month is paid, and P. E. Walker to pay the Electrical Workers' Union £1 IGs. forthwith, in default two days' imprisonment, warrant to bo Suspended for ono month. TENEMENT'CASES. C. J. Word and Co. proceeded against S. Campbell for possession of a tenement and £9, against C. Guscott, for possession, and .£(> 155.; against Thomas Sifl'lett, for possession and £G 2s. Gd., and against W. Babbage for possession, Tho facts were that Ward and Co. bought the four cottages which adjoin tho firm's boot factory for the purposo of converting them into a factory for tho manufacture of standardised boots. The sum of £3rM was paid for the pioperties, and the purchase- was not completed until tho City Council was made acquainted with the transaction because of the housing difficulty, and the purchase was approved. It was stated that tho houses wore in a dilapidated condition and practically unfit for human habitation,

C. J. Ward, the principal of the firm, said that tho manufacture of standard boots was necessary for the Dominion as a whole, otherwise the Board of Trade would not have decided on it. Boots were being imported into the country at exorbitant prices, and they were mostly fancy boots which were not suitable for the ordinary man.

The Magistrate intimated that lie y-ould inspect tho properties before giving his decision. Mr. Cr. Watson appeared for Ward and Co. The caso of Allan Smith v. Henry Guy ton, claim for possession of a house and £2, was adjourned pending an inBpection of tho property, which is located in Adelaide Road.

A warrant for possession of a house, 14 Clyde Street, Island Bay,' was ordered in the case' of" Kenneth" I. Barr, for whom Mr. P. Kennedy appeared, against Timothy Moynihan, who was represented by Mr. J. Scott. Moynihan is to give lip possession by February 2G. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for Phillip Nissenboum, who sought possession of a tenement in the occupation of Solomon W. Silver, for whom Mr. P. Kennedy appeared. After hearing evidence His Worship made an order for possession to be given within 10 days.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. 11. C. Gibbons and Co., Ltd., for whom Mr. D. F. Smith appeared,- proceeded against-W: 11. Long and C0.,-grain and produce merchants, to recover the sum' of 0t27 Is. lid., and for general damagess A'so, alleged to have been sustained by reason of the defendants' not safely storing and taking care of certain goods belorging to the plaintiffs. By arrangement between the parties the plaintiffs stored a quantity of peas with tho defendants, and water entered the premises and damaged the peas. Mr. Smith, after detailing tho arrangements made, said that there were two grounds of action—first, that there was a warranty that tho place where the peas were stored was dry, and secondly that the defendants were in the position of warehousemen. Ho contended' that there was a breach of warranty and negligence.' H. jC. Gibbons explained how tho. agreement for storage was arrived at. The place was insneeted bv storemeu in tho employ of witness. When the water got into the premises be bad to send four out of six storomen to go and help to remove the neas to prevent moro •serious The bag.? were .ill branded and awaiting shipment, and ho had to send his own men to do tho work because ho could not trust casual labour to do it. _ The goods were removed to Dalgety's store, and this necessitated a second handling before shipment.

To Mr. O'Leary: The damage appeared not to bo sufficient to stop the shipment, but ho could not say what claims would be made. Claims by the consignees were in hand, but lie could r.ot say whether they were in resnect of tho apparently damaged peas. There were flio sacks of peas stored and 24 sacks wore apparently damaged. There was no loss on fhe goods, but ho could not say definitely until he examined tho claims that had como in. Ho had absolute confidence in Mr. Long, and did nor. think that lie would accept storage of the peas if tho store were not a dry one. There was no definite time for the storage, but it was exnressly stated that he could have the storage for <is lone <i'S was necessary.

Thomas Westwood, chief storeman for IT. 0. Gibbons and Co.. said he inspected Lons's store, and inquired if the store were dry and wns assured that it was so. Witness was informed that the Toof ami skylight had been thoroughly overhauled.

Henry Baldwin, grain and produce merchant, said ho was asked by -\fr. Gibbons to examine nntl report on tho damage done to some Kicks of pens filmed in Long's place. He did so, and font in u report, which was put in. Wilne?s va* of opinion that tiie steps taken by Gibbons and Co. prevented more serious damage.

TV>r the defence Mi. O'Lenry said that I/m(; was tlie lessee of the premises, a portion of which was used as a store ami it was thcro that the peas were stored. As between Mr. Long and his landlord, the latter undertook to repair the roof and keep it in proper repair, and Jfr. Lang's representative had quite honestly stated to tho storomen sent by Gibbons to inspect the store, that tho place was quite dry. Thcro was an t:npreeedented fall of rain on a Saturday night in August, and Gibbons and Co. were immediately informed of the damage. Long and Co. were bound to test the claim so that when they retaliated on the landlord they would'bo able to say finite honestly that they had done everything to minimiso tho damages. They were only concerned with the damages because they recognised that they were liable for breach of warranty. Tho claim for general damages was nebulous. It was no doubt thought at that time that tho pens would lw sold at a loss, but up to the present timo no loss had been jnado, and as tho peas wore shipped in January last year the plaintiff ought now to bo able to say what loss there was, if any.

His Worship indicated that lio would fc'ivo judgment for plaintiffs for the amount of the specific damages. 'to. Cd., and jEO general damages, with costs, and plaintiffs elected to accept this, l,ut final delivery of judgment was adjourned until January 27, for tho adjustment of any claims that might havo been mado by tho consignees and which havo yet to be examined.