PUKEKOHE MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 144, 11 February 1916, Page 3

PUKEKOHE MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, February 10th. (Before Mr E Page, S M) > CIVIL ACTIONS Judgments by detail t were entered for the respective plaintiffs in tba following caee?, viz.:—A H Baker, farmer, Pukekohe, v. Wil iim Mills, dealer, Kaipara, for £lO 5s and costs £1 2s; U (i K Mas™, barrister and solicitor, Pukekohe, v. P Partington, contractor, Pukekohe, for £2 lis 4d and costs 103

Judzment by consent was given tor Mfsus Lapwood Bros, flaxmillers, Tuakau (Mr Haddow) v. Warn, a Maori labourer, of Puni, tor £l2 2s 4d and costs £2 Os 6d. Judgment after heating was given for H B Free, storekeeper, Tuakau, v. Weti Clark, a Maori labourer, of Tuakau, for £8 17s 2d and costs £! tis. An order for payment was made in the judgment summons A 0 Woollett, storepkeepei, Pukekohe (Mr Hopkins) v. Tu Happy, a Maori labourer, of Pukekohe, for £2 8s 9d, the balance of a claim amounting to £4 8s 9d A MAINTENANCE CLAIM. Kuby Owsali Bartley, of Pukekohe, applied for a separation order to be made against her hubsand, a motorman, resident at Devonport, and for maintennce, the sum asked ' fir being £1 10s per week. Mr Mason appeared for plaintiff and oi the request of the defendant applied or an adjournment until tbe fillowing Court day, oi the 24th mat. —The Magistrate acceded to the request A CARTING DISPUTE An alleged breach of contract on the part of Herbert James Flay, farmer and carrier, of Bombay, was the subject of an action brought against bim by Thomas Masefield, farmer, also oi Bombay The plaintiff, who was represented by Mr Maboney, senr., claimed tbe sum of £4 13s in respect of expenees incurred as a result of defendant's failure to cart a consignment of coal from the Pokeno railway station to bis farm. Mr Haldow appeared on behalf of defendant. At Mr Mahoney's n-quest alt witnesses were ordered out of Court. Plaintiff submitted that during November last he arranged with defendant to catt a truck of coal from the Pokeno railway station to his farm for 10s per ton. Defendant asked 12s per ton, but agreed to cart it for the 10s, and it was arranged that plaintiff should order the coal, and on its arrival at the datnn that a telegram should be forwarded by the stationmaster to defendant so that he could cart the coal immediately. Tbe coal arrived on a Friday, but it remained at the stitioT*, and he was obliged to have it carted at an increased price of 153 per . ton. There were also other expenses, including £1 2s for demurrage, 6s tor labour and a further amount for general expanses that were incurred as a result of defendant not keeping to his contrac'.

Kobeit Masefield, son of tbe plaintiff, stated that he was aware ot a truck of coal which was to arriva at Pokeno from Taipiri and to he carted by defendant One Friday evening fullowi"? the arrival of the ccal defendant's son handed him a telegram which had been made out by the stationmaster at Pokeno stating that the coal was at the station, and he gave him a message that his father csuld not cart the coal on the following day—Saturday—as he woild be carting to Paparata and Pukekohe. He replied, "Jim, tbs coil is nn your father's hands. I can't cart it tomorrow. If your father had not said ha would cart it it would not have been ordered." He went to defendant's house on tbe following Wednesday and remonstrated with him re the message he had conveyed to him by his son and defendant replied that he was not accountable for the message. Witness asked him to produce his son so that he could repeat tha massage, but be refused to. Oi a later date he again called at defendant's housa and told him tbe amount be was holding him liable for, and he replied that be would nnt have anytbirg to do with it. Defendant asked his son ti repeat the message that be had conveyed to witres when be handed him the tel'gram, and the boy said it was to the effect that his father c tuld not cart the coal. On one occasion defendant complained to him that bis father hud beaten him down to 10s per toi. After losing a considerable amount of time arrangements were eventually made to have the coal carted by a Mr Coombe at an increased price

Defendant deposed that he had been carting for 20 years and had never had a disagreement previous to the one he was engaged in. The initial arrangements in connection with the carting of the coal were made on 16th November, when he asked plaintiff for 15s per ton, but be refused and said he could cart it himself for a Icbs amount. He offered to reduce the amount to 12? I3J per ton if plaintiff would arrange for the order to be either tour and a half or rive tons, but plaintiff again said that he could do it for ]?bs. He mad: it clear to plaintiff that he couid not cart the coal that week if he gave him £1 per ton, as he was busy. It was eventually agreed that plaintiff was to let him know if he would accept 12s 6d. The message he gave to his gon to deliver on the Friday evening was that he could not cart the coal. Plaintiff's eon called to see him one evening and he, defendant, him where the coal was. On his reply being that it was in the truck at the I'okeno station he said "I would not like tn be in your shots. The amount of the demurrage will be more than the coal is worth.'' Masetield asked bim if he intended to cirt it, and be said if he paid him 12& 6d per ton and paid ail +h r changes on it he wouldk ' I replied that he

wuuld take .on against bim. He submitted a iger showing that he had received J ptr ton for carting giod- to IVi w ict > was ° n 'y half the d r. to defendant's farm. . , .

•faints' Her . I'lay. sjn of defendanr a f hnol boy attending the Pukekohe District High School, gaid that the message he gave Maseiuld, junr., was that his father could not cart the coal that week or the next week onlesa ha

next time be saw MasefJeld, junr., was one evening in his father's (defendant's) yard. Masefield said t> hiifather that he would summons him if he would not cart the coal, and his father replied that he would not cart it unless he was paid 12s 6d per ton Leslie Balme, farmer, Bombay, spoke to hearing plaintiff and defendant discussing the question of carting. Be and defendant were engaged in carting metal on to witness's farm, and he beard plaintiff ask defendant if he could ort six or seven tons of coal for him at a later date, and defendant replied "yes," and when asked bis price stated 12s 6d, but added that rather than take less he would leave his hordes at home in the paddock. He was standing eix or seven yards away irom them at the time, abd the last he heard was defendant instructing plaintiff to orderj the coal to arrive the iclliwing week and that it plaintiff decided on the 12s 6d defendant would cart it The Magistrate said it was one of those unfortunate cases where respected people cams into the court and save evidence that conflicted. His opinion wss that a misunderstanding had occurred in the arrangements. The plaintiff, however, had not established his case

Mr Maboney asked tor a nonsuit, but judgment was given for defendant with costs as follows, solicitor's fee £1 If, Court costs 4s, anl witness' expenses £1 4s