RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 12, 14 January 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

[Before L. Bboad, Esq., R.M.] Macfarlane v. Union Insurance Company. This was an action to recover £27 19s, the details of which were as follows:—Nine days wages at £1 per day and 13 days at 10s per day, total £15 10s. Expenses: Passage, 12s 6d; meal on board, Is 6d; board at Totaranui, £3; ditto at Masonic Hotel, £2 10s; telegr&ms, &c, ss; board at Osborne's, £7; total expenses, £12 9s. Total claim, £27 19s. Mr Bunny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Acton Adams for the defendants, who paid £7 Us 8d into Court. The facts of the case were as follows:—In November last the entter Dido; was declared a total wreck and abandoned by her ownen. The defendants, by their agent in Nelson, engaged the plaintiff to advertise for teuderi for launching the vessel, and afterwards to proceed with the contractor to superintend the work, and in the written authority so to do it waa stated that he would be paid for the services he rendered. The vessel waa safely launched and brought into Nelson harbor, and plaintiff: claimed £1 per day and his keep for the time he was away. It was on this claim that the amount was paid into Court. It waa further alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that he had been engaged to look after the vessel while lying in Nelson harbor, and for this he claimed at the rate of ten shillings per day and his keep. TEe defendants denied the last engagement. ! His. Worship said that the first claim arose but of an express contract in writing, and the only question was what was reasonable remuneration. It was 1 a 1 special service requiring special knowledge, and he did not think that £1 per day was at all too much. ; With regard to the second item there was only an implied contract, of the making of ■which there was not sufficient proof. The plaintiff might yet have a claim against the owner of the Dido when the ownership was clear, and therefore he would nonsuit him in order to allow of his bringing another action if he thought fit to do so. Judgment for £2 10s beyond the amount paid into Court, and COStS £3 BS. , .: i