DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1930, 18 November 1884, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON.

Yestekday,— (Before his Honour Judge Smith.) Civil Oases. Thos. Wells v. Jvs. Mickay. — Claim €25 9s lOd. Mr Dyer for the plaintiff. - Judgment by default for full amount and costs. Jas. Hamilton v. Carnaciun and iUooney.— Claim £99 13s 3d for work and lnbuur done. Mr W. M. Hay for the plaintiff. — Judgment for full amouut and costs. Friar and Davies v. Mark Smith.— Claim, £22 13% amount of dishonoured P.N., with interest. Mr O'Neill for plaintiffs. — Judgment for amount with co^ts. c. PorrEßroN v. waikato coal and shipping COMPANY. For this case the following jury were empanelled : — Messrs N. R. Co\', W. Davis, S. Coombes and P. Corboy. Mr Gresham for plaintiff and Mr Hay for defendant. This was an action brought by Mr Chns. Potterton, of Cambridge, a builder, to recover from the company the sum of £90 7s Od, for work done, damages in consequence of the lefusal by the com pany to allow the plaintiff to complete his contract, and also for compensation for loss of time occasioned to the plaintiff in consequence of the neglect by the company to deliver the building material necessary to erect five cottages contracted by the company. Mr Hay took several preliminary objections. He contended that the summons had not been served at the registered office of the company in Auckland, as required by the Companies Act. Mr Gresham said it had been served in accordance with rule 01 of the District Court, which provided that the summons might be ser\ed at the office, station, a place of bnsiness of defendant. Mr Hay Raid the act impliedly repealed the rule. But were it otherwise the rule had not been complied with. The summons had been served in the street at Ngaruawahia. Mr Gresham contended that Ngaruawahia was a place of business of the com* pany. The Judge ruled that the act did not repeal the rule, and said he would leave to the jury the question of whether the place where the service was effected on Captain Lindsay was the place of business of the company. Mr Hay asked that a note should be taken of his objection to the service with a view to ulterior proceeding*. The plaintiff proved his claim in detail, and showed that Captain Lindsay contracted with him by a written agreement for the construction (labour only), of five cottages on the company's premises at ', Huntly. This agreement was signed by \ Captain Lindsay as "Manager" for the company ; also, that great delay occurred in the works in consequence of the company's neglect to deliver the necessary material in reasonable time ; also as to the delivery of bricks. After the examination in shief of plaintiff, Mr Hay stated he would not crossexamine any of the witnesses or go into the merits of the case in any way, but would I simply call evidence as-to the service of the summons. Three witnesses were examined for plaintiff, and counsel addressed the juiy (Mr Hay confining himselt to the question of service.) His Honour summed up at considoiable length, putting to the juiy three issues: - 1. Was Ngaruawahia a place of business of the company? 2. Was Captain Lindsay manager? 3. What sum (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to ? His Honour directed the jury that " place of business" in rule 6i was not confined to "any particular definite narrow locality," but that "the place of business " of the company was any place on the banks of the Waikato liver where any of the company's steamers weie accustomed to call. Also, that Captain Lindsay had signed a paper as manager, and that something was due to plaintiff, whatever the jury might estimate it to be. After 20 minutes deliberation the jury retained the following verdict: — 1. Ngaruawahia is the place of business ot the company. 2. Captain Lindsay was manager. The' plaintiff is entitled to £(51 7s 9d. His Honour gave judgment for that amount, with £18 2s 6d costs. Mr Hay gave notice of appeal. The Court adjourned at 10.15 p.m. until this morning at 9 o'clock, when the case Bank of New Zealand v. Jas. Coombes claim £08, balance of amount of a dishonoured bill of evchange endorsed by defendant, will be heard.