MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 May 1920, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

| YESTERDAY'S SITTING. Tlio following business was transacted at the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr. T. A. B. Builey, S.M.— POLICE CASES. Tama Rero Aliu, for being found drunk in Currie Street on Saturday, was convicted and fined 5s and ordered to pay 2s Cd cab hireJames Barron, for being £9 15s 6d in arrears on a maintenance order, was ■convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended provided lie paid £3 forthwith and 5s per week towards the arrears and keep up payments under the order. CnTnTBUSINESS. j UNDEFENDED CLAIMS. •Tudampiit wag given for plaintiff by default in the following undefended cases:—R. S. Wooldridge (Mr. A. A. Bennett) v. Charles Waru, £4 9s fld (costs 18s); Frederick Ward (Mr. Bennett.) v. M. Coffey, £i (costs 10s); Louise Wooldridge (Mr. L. Etherington) v. R. Whale, £7 (costs 23s 6d). LAND AGENT'S LICENSE. Mr. T. P. Anderson appeared in support of an application by Mr. Stanley Lovegrove for a land agent's license, which was granted by the Court. CLAIM FOR RENT AND COUNTER CLAIM FOR LABOR. Herbert Old, farmer, Hawera (Mr. R. &■ Quilliam) sued Ernest Parfitt (Mr. C. H. Croker) for £0 7s 6d, being irrears of rent due for a dwelling at Fitzrov, Defendant counter-claimed for £lO 7s fid, being rent for one room in the house, and a charge for certain work done in connection with a cesspit and digging a drain. After hearing the evidence the ! Magistrate gave judgment for the full amount of the claim and for £1 10s on the counter-claim. RESERVED JUDGMENTS. HUGHES AND COCHRANE r. SORENSEN. The Magistrate gave his reserved judgment in the above case, which was a claim to recover £ll6 for damages for alleged breach of warranty in respect to certain cows sold by plaintiffs to defendants- After a. reference to the general circumstances' of the case the Magistrate said that, although there was some conflict of evidence on the point, lie was quite satisfied the plaintiffs mentioned that they wanted the cows to be in calf, and that the defendants were well aware of the fact, and that when the list of stock was made out the cows were described as "in calf" . . . This the Magistrate said seemed to him to amount to a warranty. In regard to tl'o amount, of damages he said it was dillicult to estimate that in the case. The ordinary rule in an action for a breach of warranty was that the measure of damages was the difference between the value of the chattel with the warranty and the value without the warranty. OrilinaTily the breach of warranty is discovered soon after the delivery of the chattel, but in this case it was not discovered till six months af-, ter. When the plaintiffs were satisfied! that the cows were not in calf they should have sold tliom t*nd replaced J them with others. There were difliculties in the way of that owing to the stock being the subject of security t/i the Government Repatriation Department, but he thought the difficulties could have been overcome. The damages were assessed at £75 and Judgment was given for plaintiffs for that amount. Mr. Ronald H. Quilliam appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. C. H. Croker for defendants. HATRICK & CO. v. JEFFRIES. Reserved judgment was also given on the above case, which was a claim for £36 for the balance of goods alleged to have been sold to defendants by plaintiffs- Of the amount £5 was' admitted and the was in respect to 2 tons of flour, which defendant alleged he had paid for, but though he got a receipt he could not produce it. The business between the parties was transacted through Mr. Boyd, a traveller for ; Uatrick &, Co. The Magistrate commented on the slackness of the methods employed by Mr. Boyd in dealing witlt moneys received by him on behalf of his employers, and accepted the defendant's statement that he had paid the account. In giving judgment for defendant the Magistrate said he also commented on the carelessness of defendant in hisbusiness methods, in making payment of large sums and depending entirely upon receipts, which might be lost or mislaid, for evidence of the payment. He neither paid by cheque nor kept books in which entries of such a nature should be made. If he is called upon to make payments twice over lis has onlv himself to blame.

Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. C. H. Croker.for defendant. •