MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 May 1918, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CIVII, iSITTING. (Before Mr A. Crnoke, S.M.) At the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Air. A. Crooke, K.M., judgment for plaintili' by default wils given in the following undefended cases: Taranaki County Council (Mr. J. IT. Quilliaiu) v. Win. 'Paul, £2l 9s Sd (costs £2 (In); same v. 10. A. Hoggins, £9 18s 7d (costs £1 4s Od);'K. H. 'Hughes (Mr. XV C. Hughes) v. 11. L. Hogg, £lO 10a (costs £1 10s (id); Anchor Shipping Co. (Mr. H. 1?. Hilling) v. G. Williams, £3 4s fld (costs 10s); Edward McGinty v. W. C. Healy, £9 18s 7d (costs ss); W. B. Clarke (Mr. A. C. Lawrey) v. Wm. Te Whiti, i:4 (costs 18s); Hoskins Bros. (Mr. H. E. Billing) v. Asiiley Francis, 12s (costs os). JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. In the judgment summonses case, International Harvester Co. (Mr. Billing) v. George Bennett, farmer, Korito, the court declined to make any order, on the ground that the judgment debtor had no means to pay. In the case of Kay and Bergman (Mr F. C, Wilson) tailors, New Plymouth, v. William. Pratt, farmer, Bell Block, the debtor was ordered to pay the sum of £ls 18a by May 7, in default twelve days' imprisonment, the order to be suspended so long as the debtor paid the sum of £2 per month.

CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. George Beere (Mr. J. H. Quitliam), enineer, New Plymouth, v. Norman S. ames (Mr. H. R. Billing), laborer, Fitzoy. This was a claim for £9 3s for repairs to motor car, and for ■ storage of nr. Defendant counter-claimed- for £2l 8; (id on the ground that plaintiff had I ailed to perform his contract to repair he car, and had thereby deprived defend-1 i«nt of the use of it. It was also claimed j hat plaintiff had detained and converted flhe car to his own use, also a rope, which 'had been destroyed, and that plaintiff lad used defendant's car for the purpose cf towing another car. Mr. Quilliam said he understood that part of the amount of the claim was admitted by defendant. The chief item in dispute was a charge for storage of the car for 15 weeks at 7s (id per week. Defendant had been tald that in order to accommodate his car plaintiff had been i< bilged to 'move another car to another garage for storage, and he had agreed to pay the amount of the storage charged for the car, the space for which his car liad occupied. Plaintiff gave evidence in accordance With counsel's statement.

Defendant deposed that some sf the Stems in the claim were all right. He understood that plaintiff said he could leave his car at his garage, provided the room was not required for other use. He did not expert to be charged for storage on account of that. On the counter-claim defendant said lie had left his car with plaintiff to be put in order for use at the February race meeting in 1918. The car was taken out of the garage the night before the first day of the races. On the day of the rafles thfl car would not work satisfactorily, and defendant was prevented from using it for hire work: He was not able to use it at all on the second ay of the races. Plaintiff said he had instructions from defendant to clean the cylinders of his car. He had no work to do t» the magneto or carburetter. He did the workordered, and delivered the car to defend ant the night before the first day of the races. The next day he made some slight adjustment to the carburetter when defendant brought the car to liis garage Defendant did ply for hire on both race days. Judgment was given for plaintiff on both claim and counter-claim, with costi £1 7s. ' CLAIM FOR WORK DONE. George Main (Mr. A. C. Lawrey) carpenter, New Plymouth, claimed from Edward McGinty, hotelkeeper, the sum of £2 !)s 4d for work done. The work consisted of taking out a doorframe and putting a window in its place. Plaintiff also renovated some window sashes and put a screen over one. of the windows. He gave no estimate'lor the work, but merely told defendant how long it would take to do. yrhe work took 35 hours, and plaintiff charged Is 8d per hour, which was the union rate of {fay. Part of the amount had been paid into court, and the claim was for the balance (£1 lis 8d). The defence was that the work had been estimated by plaintiff to take a day and a half, and that plaintiff' had undertaken, in writing to the defendant to do the work for two days' pay. It was, therefore, a contract, and plaintiff was not entitled to eharga for a longer period than that estimated by him for the work. Plaintiff was non-suited, and judgment entered for defendant.