MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 January 1920, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

1 YESTERDAY'S SITTING. A sitting of the Magistrate's Court Was held at New Plymouth yesterday, before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., when the following cases were dealt with:— LAND AGENTfe' LICENCES.

Land agents' lic*nces were granted to Messrs A. E. Watkins (Mr. T. P. Anderson), E. Griffiths, F. H. Jellymaa (Mr. C. H. Croker). ~ DAMAGE TO A MOTOR BATTERY. Dr. H. A. McCleland (Mr. Ronald H. Quilliam) claimed! £l2 from Kenneth NVndrews, manager for Messrs Lawrence > id Hanson, New Plymouth (Mr. A. A. B unctt) for alleged damage to a Sparta ekrtric battery, which waß placed in def.indants' hands for sale. Mr. Quilliam said the facts were that plaintiff had a battery, which was a little too big for his car, and he wished to sell it. He had the battery put in thoroughly good order, and then took it to defendant, at Messrs Lawrence and Hanson's, and l asked him if he thought he could dispose of it for him. It had been bought about twelve months previously .from' defendant's firm. Defendant saw the battery tested in the presence of plaintiff and a witness and Baid he did not think that there would be any difficulty in selling it. Time went on and there was no sale, although defendant repeatedly said it would be all right. Eventually, however, plaintiff became dissatisfied and he got the battery back and found it in a damaged condition. He had it examined by an electrician, who said it was badly out of order and practically unsaleable. He therefore claimed the value of the battery from defendant.

Evidence to this effect was given by plaintiff. In cross-examination by Mr. Bennett he admitted; the battery was houghf in December, 1916. He denied that the battery was in a very secondhand condition when given toAndrews to sell. When he took it back it was very badly knocked -about. Naik had been driven into the wood, one of which had pierced the plates, and the sehelac was cracked to pieces. The price he asked defendant to get was £l2, of which he was to keep £1 as commission for himself.

Mr. Bennett raised the point as to whether plaintiff should not have sued Lawrence, and Hanson instead of defendant.

Mr. Quilliam submitted that that was a matter for Mr. Bennett to argue and not cross-examine plaintiff on.

Plaintiff said he was quite satisfied that Mr. Andrews and not his firm-had undertaken the sale of the battery. On consultation with defendant Mr. Bennett said any claim on that point. would be waived. Evidence was then given bv Ivor E. Wstkifia. Who had been engaged by plaintiff to look after his car. O He corroborated the evidence as to the condition of the battery at the time defendant received it for sale and also at the time Dr. McCleland received it back again. M. Vnght, electrician, employed by Messrs Smart Bros., deposed to' putting the battery in order for plaintiff, and also to the condition of the battery when it was brought to his firm's place in March last. Some of the plates had been damaged by nails being driven into them. New plates could not be procured at that time. He did not know whether plates could be obtained at the present time. <

In reply to Mr. Bennett he »said it would be difficult to say whether the battery could be restored to its former condition, or what it would cost, supposing it could be repaired. He was quite satisfied that the principal cause of the damage was through the nails that had been driven into the case of the battery. ,

Defendant said he knew plaintiff had | a battery for sale, and he called to see him about it- That would be in July laet. He called Dr. McCleland's attention to the second-hand; appearance of it, but he tested' it, and witness took it straight out to a client he thought lie could sell it to. No sale resulted. He brought it back to his warehouse, and rang up plaintiff next morning, who suggested he should keep it there in case he got a sale for it. He told plaintiff that it would be all right there, but it would be at his own responsibility. Some months after witness had some inquiry for a battery by two men. He Bhowed them plaintiff's battery, but when they went to lift it up the side of the case came out, and it was evident that it had been leaking for some time and the wood had rotted away. It was found also that the plates had corroded-

In reply to Mr. Quilliam witness said he never pointed out to Dr. McCleland the condition of the battery when he found it had been leaking. He did nothing to remedy or mitigate the damage resulting through the leakage while the battery was in his possession-. He gave plaintiff to understand that the battery would be held by witness at his (plaintiff's) rißk. He did not tell the clients, who enquired about a battery, the condition he thought it was in. He told them Dr. McCleland wanted £9 or £lO for the battery. He knew nothing about any nails being put into the case. Arthur H. Ellis, electrical engineer, for Messrs Borthwick and Sons, Waitara, to whom the battery wsb offered, entered into a technical explanation of the general principles governing the working of a battery. He said at the time Anderson offered it to him it was leakinir badly and heavily sulphated, and was of no value as a marketable article. Additional evidence as to the condition of the battery, while in the care of defendant, was given by Chas. Banks manager of the People's Picture Company, and James Lees, electrical engineer. in the employ of the New Plymouth Borough Council. Both witnesses regarded the battery as of no value at the time they inspected it. In reply to Mr. Quilliam the last witness said a battery would deteriorate if left uncharged. To keep it in good order it should be charged every few weeks, and that would cost about 7/6 per time.

His Worship said that hut for the fact that a nail had been driven into the battery he did not think there was anv liability on defendant. It was evident that the nail had been driven into the battery by some one in the premises of defendant. It was difficult to estimate the amount of the damage, but he assessed it at £2 and gave judgment accordingly, with costs and expenses amounting to £2 19s.

FEES ON RACEHORSES. Edward McGinity, liotal keep* '/few Plymouth (Mr. <\ H. Croker) chimed from H. A. Laurent (Mr. C. H. T'JQston) the sum of £ls for moneys \er t ' and for the benefit of defendant. Plaintiff deposed to leasing from E. ALaurent, on January 11, 1919, certain racehorses. At the time the lease was •Mtmttt UUUX »Tt a* ftttttreUt tyftt

there were no fees owing in respect to events for which the horses had been nominated. An account was afterwards rendered for £lO for racing three horses at Stratford. Witness did not incur the expense, but paid it at Laurent's request. He also paid £5 on account of horses raced at Feilding, The Feildin" meeting was a postponed meeting. It was fixed for November, 1918, hut was postponed till January. 11, 1919, „„ account of the influenza epidemic. Laurent told witness that he was selling a farm, and would have plenty of monny in a short time, and told "witness he would be able to pay as soon as he got that money, and so witness paid the accounts. One of the horses for which a charge was made witness never had anything to do with.

Cross-examined by Mr. Weston witness admitted having one of the horses (Staccato) in his keeping from December 28, 1918. When the lease was exe-' cuted the horse Haversack was included as Laurent said he would not lease one without the other. There was no arrangement about taking over the horses' engagements. When he was asked to pay the nomination fees he reminded defendant that he had told him all the fees were paid, and the explanation offered was that he had expected to have sold his farm andi have paid the feea in time.

Further examined bv Mr. Croker, witness said Laurent left the horses with his trainer on December 28, and went on to Auckland, but he was not responsible for the engagement of the horses until the lease was signed Patrick Wm. Scally, horse" trainer New Plymouth, deposed to receiving the horns from Laurent, on behalf of MoGinty, and keeping them for about seven weeks. Defendant told him he would like Haversack to. have a race at btratford on January 1, and witness went to Eltham to see Laurent's son (K. K. Laurent) about racing the horse He wanted to know who he was training for, as McGintv said he then had no responsibility regarding the horses. Helen McGintv. wife of plaintiff, gave evidence as to payment bv her husband or fees on account of the nomination of Uurent's horees before they were leased by McGintv.

At this stage, on the application of dcendant, the cas*. was adjourned until •Monday next.