A CASE FOR JORDAN

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 13 May 1915, Page 2

A CASE FOR JORDAN

Vivian McLeod vJ. B. Jordan, claim £2 10s. (Mr Beale for plaintiff, and Mr Field for defendant).

The evidence went to show that Mr Jordan had a contract with Mr Tilby to carry any goods required to Jordan's Island at 10s per ton. On the occasion in question Mr Jordan had some timber and a tank to be delivered and he instructed Mr Tilby to carry them. Mr Tilby delegated Mr V. McLeod (the plaintiff) to carry it. Mr McLeod did so and billed defendant with the sum of £2 10s; defendant considered this unreasonable, but offered to pay if account was reduced. Being unable to get a reduction, Mr Jordan paid to Mr Tilby the sum of 25s in satisfaction. A summons had then been issued, and defendant defended on the ground that he had not made any contract with McLeod, but that he had made one with Tilby, and had paid him.

Judgment was given for defendant and solicitors' costs, £1 Is.

THE MOTOR CAR RUNS

Mr and Mrs Harris as plaintiffs v Messrs Simmonds, Osmond and Stonewig as defendants. (Mr Field for plaintiffs, and Mr Hall Skelton for defendants). The total claim was for £36 (reduced by plaintiffs at beginning of hearing to £31) damages caused by a collision of defendants' motor car with plaintiffs' gig, in which the plaintiffs were riding at the time.

For the plaintiffs, evidence was given by the plaintiffs and Messrs McDonald, Goad and Lambert, and for the defence by Messrs Simmonds, Matthews, and Stonewigg.

According to plaintiffs' story, they were proceeding homeward after the Pictures on Saturday, March 6, in bright moonlight, with one light on the right side of the gig, when Mrs Harris, hearing a noise, looked behind her and saw a motor car coming at great speed on to the bridge which they were crossing. She called out to her husband, but before anything could be done the car crashed into them, threw the horse down, smashed, the gig, and caused the two occupants to he violently thrown out on to the road. They were positive the accident occurred before they were off the bridge.

According to the defeadants' story they were coming slowly over the bridge when plaintiffs gig suddenly loomed up in front of them ; they lessened speed still further; but when the gig had proceeded about a chain from the bridge, the car endeavoured to pass it. The defendants had the wrong lantern on the right side of the gig, presenting its blank side to the road; this threw the position of the gig into obscurity; as the car endeavoured to pass, the [driver struck the horse which swerved, causing the car to lightly strike the gig: this frightened the horse, who kicked the gig to pieces and ran away.

After counsel had each addressed the Court, the Magistrate stated that he was satisfied the accident occurred on the bridge and that the car had struck thonSt T 0? iharJ. eJ than defendants thought; but he did not consider it a wonl/ Or- VmdlCti Ye dama Ses> and he would give judgment f Q r only suc h amount as would compensate plaiiSSs £?fn^h aldam% S, ci this he assessed at 47 for the gig, £5 for horse, 15s for harness, and £1 physical damages ; costs amounting to £5 ?s were awarded to Foil's r n h a V h- °bta-d iudgmeS

There were a few other cases, which nitXTdaV eaS°nS W6re adJ°Urned t0