MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21750, 19 June 1934, Page 11

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, JUNE 19. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment (with costs) was given for the plaintiffs in the following cases;— D.I.U. Ltd. v. John G. Allan (Lower Shotover), £1 15s Id, goods; A. D. Edgar v. .Florence M. Marks (Glenorchy) £3 11s,' professional services; M'Leod Bros. Ltd. v. Thomas Frethey (Hastings), £3 Os 4d, goods. DAMAGES against elderly DRIVER. The magistrate gave his reserved decision in the case in which William Roger Owens, of Kaitangata, an infant, by his next friend, Henry Owens, of Kaitangata, miner, claimed from Andrew Nelson, of Brighton, farmer, the sum of £6O for general damages and £2O 4s special damages for injuries received in a motor car collision on the Main South road on March 6, 1933. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr G. B. P. Wilson for the defendant. Mr White explained at the hearing last week that this case was a sequel to previous litigation in which the two drivers of the cars were concerned. In that case the magistrate held that he could not say which of the two was to blame. This was now a claim by a passenger, and different legal considerations arose. His Worship said that he had previously inquired into the circumstances of the collision in which the defendant’s car was involved, in an action by the driver of the other car, when the latter was non-suited. The present action was on by a passenger in the former plaintiff’s car, to which different considerations applied, as the. present plaintiff was not identified with any negligence of his driver. Mucli fuller evidence was adduced as regards the dazzling effect of motor ear lights, and the evidence was also more precise in some_ other particulars. Reviewing the evidence, His Worship said that the defendant’s statement to the constable two hours after the accident was at variance with his evidence. He had stated that he was confused when he made his statement, but it was to be noted that it was made a considerable time after the accident, which threw considerable doubt on his evidense as given at the hearing. The defendant was an old man, over eighty years of age, and was not used to driving at night, and, in His Worship’s opinion, was not sufficiently competent to deal with what was an ordinary incident or hazard of night driving. The defendant must answer for his own want of care and skill, and judgment would accordingly be entered for the plaintiff for special damages of £l6 5s (loss of wages £5, clothing £5, and hospital expenses £6). The sum of £6O. was claimed as general damages. The plaintiff had a noticeable scar on the left side of his face, which would tend to become less prominent. Ho also complained of frequent headaches, as a result of which he said ho had to give up his work in the mine, which involved lifting weights. Dr Ncwlands had said that a condition of headache following concussion was well known and _ should gradually lessen, and perhaps ultimately disappear. His Worship that the amount claimed (£6O) was reasonable. and entered judgment for a total of £76 ss, with costs. LIABILITY DISPUTED.

Robert Cephas Burgess (as assignee ot Waters, Ritchie, and Co.), proceeded against Alfred Lawrence, of Clinton, in a claim for £35 Os 5d for seeds and sacks supplied, and for money advanced and work done. Mr J. C. Robertson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. T. Walter, of Balclutha, for the defendant. Outlining the case for the plaintiff, Mr Robertson said that it had its origin in tho efforts of the Department of Agriculture to introduce a type of seed known as Hawke’s Bay perennial ryegrass into Otago and Southland. When it was first mooted the local firm of Waters, Ritchie, and Co. interested itself in the scheme and agreed to introduce the seed into these districts. The firm entered into an agreement with ten farmers in South Otago, who con-

traded to grow and harvest .the seed. These agreements were individual and were all the same in terms and conditions. Facilities were given to the farmers to procure supplies of what was known as “ true mother ” seed. Unfortunately, in the defendant’s case the seed turned out to be a “ dud. ” proposition, as the area did not prove suitable. The defendant claimed that Waters, Ritchie should bear the liability, but the fact that the scheme was not a success in his case did not absolve him from liability. The defendant had taken an incorrect interpretation of the agreement. John Biggar Waters said that the venture was not looked upon from a, commercial angle, but was intended to get the industry established. The mother seed was supplied at cost price, the cost being borne by the merchant supplying it, and extended credit was given until the crop could be harvested. After further evidence had been given Mr Walter submitted that, in view of the nature of the contract, it was never intended that points at issue should be determined by a court of justice. In matters concerning the testing of seed experts were required to settle Hhem, Counsel contended that this court was not the proper authority to deal with the dispute. His Worship intimated that he would reserve this point. The defendant stated.that he carried out his part of the bargain, but Waters, Ritchie, and Co. had not carried out The hearing was then adjourned until the afternoon.