Supreme Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7923, 3 October 1904, Page 7

Supreme Court.

SATURDAY.

(Before Mr Justice Cooper.)

CASES ON APPEAL,

Samuel Paul v. Alice Rowe—Mr Moore appeared for the appellant and Mr Haggiti for'the respondent: This was an appeal from a decision of Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., the case being heard at Feilding, and judgment delivered on May llth, 1904, in a case in which the appellant was defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff. The statement of claim 'in the Court below set out that the defendant, on Sth February, 1904, wrongfully allowed certain horses to be at large. on the road in Rongotea. One of the horses came into collision with the plaintiff and damaged her bicycle to. the extent of £10, which 'sum was claimed. On the evidence adduced judgment was given tor the respondent (the plaintiff in the lower Court) for the amount claimed and costs. Appellant was granted leave to appeal on a point of law. The grounds of appeal were (1) That there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the appellant (defendant below) adduced at the hearing. (2) That the respondent failed to prove such evidenca of negligence on the part of the appellant as entitled her to judgment. (3) That the facts as found by the Magistrate constitute' such contributory negligence on the part of the respondent as to entitle the appellant to judgment. (4) That upon the facts as found by the Magistrate judgment should have been gi*7en for the' defendant.

_ The questions submitted for the consideration of the Court were (1) Did the evidence adduced at the hearing of the action disclose any evidence of negligence on the part of the appellant. (2) Was there any evidence that the respondent's bicycle was damaged by the negligence of the appellant. (3) Did the evidence or the facts as found by the Magistrate disclose such negligence on the part of the appellant as entitled the respondent to judgment ? (4) Did the evidence or the facts as found by the Magistrate disoloee suoh contributory negligence on the part of the respondent as to disentitle her to judgment ?. Counsel having addressed the Court on the points of' law and facts involved, his Honor BBid he thought the ap*peal must be dismissed. There was ample evidence showing negligence on the part of the appellant. The bor.es had been deliberately turned out in the road to find their own way to their stables. It was quite clear the appellant was not in a position .to exercise any control over them, he having, before the accident, turned up a side road, neither was there any contributory negligence on the part of the respondent. His Honor further said the Magistrate had ample evidence before him to decide as hb had and the judgment was entirely eorreot on all the law points raised. The appeal was dismissed, with costs £7 7b.

J. Roots and Mary Eoots v. combe Bros. Mr Moore for appellants and Mr Hageitt for the respondents. An appeal on a point of law and matter of fact from the decision of Mr A. D. Thomson, 8.M., delivered at the B.M. Court, Feilding, on Jnne Sth, 1904, in an action iv which tbe appellants were the defendants. The plaintiffs sued the defendants to recover the sum of £50 paid by one John Goodwin to the defendants for the plaintiffs, or, in tbe alternative, that the defendants receive an order from Goodwin, authorising them to pay plaintiffs ! the anm of £50. A counterclaim was filed by the defendants who sought to recover from the plaintiffs £84 16s, being commission on the sale of property belonging to tbe plaintiffs. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs on the oJaim for £50, without'costs, and on the counterclaim for the plaintiffs, defendants in the previous action, for tbe amount claimed, £84 16s and costs, making a grand total, on the counter claim, £92 9s. The appeal was lodged on the ground (1) that the Magistrate's findings of fact were erroneous and not warranted by the evidence; (2) tnat the Magistrate should have nonsuited the defendants on their counter claim; (3) that the judgment in favour of the defendants on their counter claim was wrong and was against the weight of evidence.

Counsel addressed the Court at length and his Honor said he would take time to consider the points raised.