S .M. COURT.

rtafor* Mr. C-C Seme, S.M.) rSDEFESDBD CASES. ►' ~, <Hven for the plaintiffs In WteSIJT undefended cases yesterday , hfi following Co. of N.Z.. rf? ra %r7 Walden, £» 12/3: J- *7. James W a E 80W1S, £l3 I'/. T ' ' A QUESTION OF PRICE. n-m Vcselen v. Edward Byrne. Geor B for materials furnished and £,t '? ine The sum of £S 3/ was paid Uto Couru appeared for plaintiff. slr - M t7,alTv the case resolved Itself Into *" d GTISI Per r»rd or 2/0 per yard was iraether h-> P; V,e price for work done. )ir Toww "§»>.■ wns admitted, -J ou'ehen badS several attempts an« n i* at an amicable settlement. He 10 Vh red the amounl paid Into Court was *SS&«lothe«.ueof the work l aa^'tCed^e';, m e S of , ?he »" J To high, and CS 3/ not %Sr««at n r%« Sjstf.VpnHlntoro.irt). No costs Sid be allowed. A JOINERY DISrTTE. , *. case at William Casey v. Albert In the ease x ~„unter claim, "&rtnt »>'<■ < hat seasoned rtmu *hm cut aealn would elinnK. T i Motrlem sold if flio doors were sent to ie factory Mr Casey would put them Yi?ht within a 'Wpok. «r Kettle then adjonrned the case for a w «k hi order to get the doors put In order. WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE? * somewhat Interesting point was raised f„r the defence in a case brought t™ Percy Faithful and George Hantler YMrot Messrs rullen and Aruiitage. It l&? out of a collision, plaintiffß Line owners Of the motor ear and deft&» of the cab. Mr. C\ J "Punks .roared for the plaintiffs and Dr. Bnmford fTtbe defence. The latter raised the irtUminary objection tnat ns the driver if the cab, Alexander McC.uire. was the bailee of It, and not the servant of Messrs. Pollen and Armltnge. the latter were not liable It was explained that the firm let ts cabs and horses out to the drivers, and tot tbe use thereof received one third of the cash earnings per day. After hearing •renment, his Worship decided to give Judgment for the defendants, on the ground rtat they were not responsible for the iccldent. • CLAIM EOF. DAMAGES. Mrs 3«ni Waterman v. One-tree Hill Rond District. This was a claim to recover £54 1/ aa damages for injuries alleged to have teen unstained through falling over a heap of sand, and-shell .on the footpath. Manu-ian-road, on the 17th of March, wbj-h It ins stated was left without light at night. Mr Tanks appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Garten for the defendant Board. fridence was given by plaintiff in supfort'of the claim. She deposed to falling over two separate lieapß. She stated that she was not able to walk properly for a nonti. afterwards, and had medical attendance.' flue 'was not yet free from pain, owing to tie effects, of the fall. For the defence, Henry Parfltt, foreman of worts, deposed that two half lodes of shell Had been deposited on the footpath by i carter'not' in the employ of the Board after tW workmen had knocked off. The top of Ilia heaps when he saw them had been knocked off n little. Mr. Kettle said the law was clear that a local body was responsible for obstructions on the fodtputh. He thanked Mr. Parntt for hiving given his evidence so fairly, aid creditably. It was purely a question of the amount of damages. Mr. Chr/ton said "It was a serious matter for local bodies if they had to be responsible for the actions of contractors. Mr. Clayton ato inajfjted damages claimed ■sere excessive. He claimed that beyond medical expenses Mrs. Waterman was only affiled to nominal damages. The Board Wsnot Informed that iegal action would be taken until three months after the actldent occurred. JO. Tanks emphasised the fact that the cOctor not being called In for some days *m.m accident Showed it was not WUMPI oßjeet to make an exaggerated claim for damages. Mr'J?'"* Bald tfl e 'ocnl body had met Me »se very fairly. The foreman of works also made no attempt to twist the erldence for the benefit of his employers. Tte was m, aoiibt that the shell was S?,iL, a u a , lm P ro Perly upon the footpath. iM local body had its remedy against the £»"*»'•, " .*?" alfflcnlt *° ascertain the Sfffit *S. m ", ?" e ne had llttle cause &J2S&L + he^ dalm an eiortitant one. ■Xlfel £ , thß ffled,cal man ' s evidence Una?it i rfk I °?" J laJ . arles had becn susiffifi fiffiLhi with her forth,. , w ? a KlTen for the Plaintiff tbo LT? mt ol * lln *< J . «». Keneral costs. KLSm* 0 /!, el P?pses f6 6/, and 16/9 "" W 3/ of the aoftoi-s second account.