MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 February 1916, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

UNDEFENDED CASES,

A sitting of the Magistrate's Court was held yesterday, Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., presiding. Judgment was given for plaintiff in default of defendant in the following cases:—Newton King (Mr. D. Hutchen) v. Arthur Bircliall, £ll3 2s 3d (costs £0 Gs); W. F. Broolcing (Mr. Lawrcv) v. R. H. Earley, £8 (£1 3s 6d). In the judgment summons ease, R. C. Hughes v. Mangu Mangu, the defendant was ordered to pay the debt of £2O 15s 6d before February 29, in default three weeks' imprisonment.

A WILL AND A DEBT,

A somewhat unusual ease was that in which Philip Eva (Mr. A. H. Johnstone) claimed against John Eva, executor of the late William Eva (Mr. J. C. Nicholson) £lls ISs, made up of two amount? of £65 18a, due as arrears for maintenance, and £SO, due under the will of the defendant. It was shown that in July, 1905, an order for the maintenance of Phi'.v Eva was made against William Eva, but the order had not been complied with, and the arrears amounted to £OS 18s. These arrears had not been paid when William Eva died. In William Eva's will there was a legacy of £SO to the plaintiff, who now claimed to recover the arrears of the maintenance order and the legacy. John Terry, clery of the Magistrate's Court, gave evidence respecting the order against William Eva, and said there was' nothing in the books to show that any amount bad been paid on the order.

The will of William Eva was handed

Philip Eva stated that he had been afflicted with blindness for about 14 years. He obtained an order for maintenance against William Eva in 1905. He was the Philip Eva mentioned in the will of William Eva. To Mr. Nicholson: Witness did not press William Eva for the money, because William promised witness to make a will in witness' favor. Witness sent for the lawyer to make bis brother's, will, and he was present when the will was made out.

This closed the case for the plaintiff.

Margaret E. Eva, tile wife of the defendant, John Eva, was the first witness called by Mr. Nicholson. She said William Eva came to live at witness' place about throe months before his death. Witness was present on several occasions when William Eva discussed with John Eva the question of transferring his properties to John Eva. On one occasion William Eva said he wished to leave Philip Eva £SO in payment of the debt arising out of an order of the Court. To Mr. Johnstone: These conversations took place at witness' house shortly after William Eva went there. William Eva made the statement about the debt on several occasions.

Robert Henry Eva, son of the previous witness, remembered William Eva coming to stay with them, and the visit was made at William's own suggestion. William Eva told witness that he was leaving Philip Eva £SO in place of the back debt of the Court order.

Mr. Johnstone objected to 'this class of flimsy evidence." This closed the case for the defendant. After hearing legal argument, the Magistrate reserved his decision.

CLAIM FOR STREET DAMAGE.

Reserved judgment was given in tlie case in which the New Plymouth Borough Council proceeded against Trevor Bros., Ltd., contractors, of Wellington, claiming to recover £73, being the amount of evtraordinary expenses incurred by plaintiff Council in repairing Devon street, Powderham street, Dawson street, Standisli street, Queen street and Vivian street, where, the plaintiff claimed, damage had been caused by excessive weight or extraordinary traffic conducted by defendants between February !), 1914, and September 8, 1915. In tlie course of his judgment the Magistrate said that in his opinion the cartage of tlie materials to the site of the new hospital, having regard to the particular streets over which the cartage was done, and the quality and quantity of the articles carried, was extraordinary traffic. Tiie evidence of Messrs Skitrop and Palmer was that tlie streets used—Powderham street,. Dawson street, Standisli street, Queen street and Vivian street—were made only to support the ordinary tradesmen's traflic, but for a period these streets were subjected to continuous heavy traffic, the articles carried being tiles, sand, gravel, cement and timber. Had it not been for this traffic tlie st,eets, according to Mr. Skitrop. would have carried the ordinary traflic of tlie borough. As it was, the streets broke up badly under the traffic. Ko doubt the unusually wet winter of 1914 assisted this breaking-up, but tlie Magistrate did not think that the persons who were responsible for tlie extraordinary, traflic could take advantage of this fact to minimise the damage, ft was admitted that the defendant company was liable in respect only of the amount of damage done to the streets by the carting done by its own dray and those hired from Bevridge. Mr. Skitrop estimated that the cost of repairing tlie streets damaged was £2O-1, and he put the damage done by the defendant company at one quarter of that sum, namely, £Ol. Mr Skitrop said it was a low estimate, but his Worship had to accept it at that. At tlie time the assessment was made it was assumed that the defendant company was responsible for tlie whole of tlie carting, the attunl portion o? the defendant's damage not appearing until the hearing of tlie action. His Worship did not sec how it was possible to differentiate between the degree of damage done by the defendant company, Bcrridge, Parkin and lloby respectively; tliiis is, the defendants did one-third of tlie cartage a nd thus caused one-third of tlie damage. Mr. Skitrop estimated that the whole damage amounted to;£ol, and one-third of this was £l7. Judgment was therefore given for £l7 and costs £0 ICs fid.

Mr. J. H. Quilliam appeared for the Borougli Council and Mr. A. 11. Johnatone (instructed by Messrs Young and Tripe, of Wellington) appeared for defendants,