S.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 236, 2 October 1908, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

(Before Mr C. C. Kettle, S.il.j A DAMAGED MOTOR CAR. Vir. Neil McDougal sued James rHxnnn for £15 damages lor injuries to his motor , car, sustained through a collision with Dignan's buggy, tUroni;n the latter's negligent driving. Air T. iotter appcarod for tbe plaintiff, aud Mr W. E. Hackett appeared tor the defendant. Iv support of tbe case for tint plaintiff it was sailed that ou April lilsl, about L3O PJii-, niaiiuift was conilus in his motor rar from his residence alous Kbyber Pass, towards Symonds-street, kecplus on the proper side of the. road. At too same time there was a train car jio'«S towards New-! market. Defendant was then driving n buggy towards Newmarket on ihe town side j of the road, and suddenly drove clean ! across the road, colliding witb plaintiff's; motor car. whicli was In consequence considerably daruaced. The claim of £15 mis for (hi- cost of effecting repairs to the motor car. for Ibe defence ii was urged by Mr Hackp-H that iio ncglisf nee had been proved, and he asked lor a uon-suit. Ills Worship expressed the opinion that tin' , evidence disclosed not only grans, but reckless negligence, as defendant crossed over to the wrong side of the road from I behind a tramcar. | The defendant said that he was following the tnuu car when it stopped. Another vebieJe wee in front on the left band side. I As soon as he did so he saw the oncoming ; motor osr. and slewed his horse round i sharply. He was strongly of opinion that! no collision occurred. After hearing frrrthov evidence, his Wor-: whip jrave judfrment for plaintiff for the ! aw Mint claimed, with costs. ' FLEET DECORATIONS. ! Francis William Mason claimed from the | Campbeil-lihrenfrieU Company the sum ofi Hal. Mr Utuliiow appeared for the plain-) tlit, and Mr J. R. lieed appeared for the I Ueiendsnt company. I In aupport ot tiie i-ase for the plaintilT it I was stated tbat plaintiff made arraugemectti lor the delivery of three, trucks of greenery, which ue was to supply to per- j sous from whom he had received orders for decorative purposes durios Fleet Week. Two trucis arrived on August 6th. and tbej third on the following day. One of the truck loatls was by some mistake delivered . to defeudauts, aud plaintiff sought to recover its value. i Mr Heed said that £5 had been pa.Wl iv [ J settlement "f tbe claim, aud defendants contended that that was more than the ' actual value. | : Tin- phiinUirr said thai tile amount ci.-ilni- . ea represented the value of the grecw.ry. which he wjis supplying to customers at : ."•/ a bundle- ' The fnrthrr hearing of the case was ad-1 1 Journed until this morning. I ; Crosß-csamined by Mr Reefl. purtntiff said 1 that he found defendant liiid got bis tn:ck 'of greenery of August GtU. Ho (lid not : see defendant on the subject on tbat clay >or the next. It was useless trying to see ) Mr Myers at that time, ns he was 100 busy. Mr Reed said that the greenery had not i been used by defendant, and plaintiff eoultl ; have obtained It r.t any time on the Friday or Saturday. -Iα reply to Ills Worship the plaintiff said he Kail got a littta patriotism mixed up with I hi 3 enterprise. He eonclndcd tbat defendant urgently needed tlu- stuff, and, knowing ' wittieas, commandeered it, and would utL-e: ' him Iα tho matter later. He was prepared to meet them in the matter in any way. but ' when up was placed in a corner aud forced [ into litigation, aud was worried, be coufcider>>tl he waa entitled to his poacd of flesh. Mr. Reed submitted that -it had not been bhown thnt the irnci load consisned to Uraham at Aiuiland had been delivered to defe-ndants. His Worship said that from the evideuco .iddiieod, the only miereuce to be drawn was f titat tht: truck had been dellTered. Mr. lined said tlat his clients were not - at all satiElied that the truck load had been i delivered to tbara. Defendants had ordered . two truck loads from Kau&ipakapa, and 1 Vhesp were sent down with a number of ! truck loads ordered for the City Council. . J. .T. Craig and Co. had instructions <o deliver two trucks lo defendant. Only one I of these trucks was delivered. Knbseqnent--3 ly. it was ascertained that the other track , had beeu carted away by the City Council, 1 and arangeracnls were made wrtli the City Engineer to supply tbe deficiency. Tester, j. ! Mr. Griffiths, in t-uarer of defen'rtant's de- , I eorations, found a note on his d«it informJ ing him that :i load of frreeuery was at t tho railway station, aud he pave instmct tlona for tbp greenery to be sent up. De- „ fcndants hraird nothing about any mistake " In delivery until after the fleet "had left. Had plaintiff gono to defendants when the mistake was discovered the greenery would have been at one** returned. was given to the effect that Lhe value of a truck of greenery at that time was about £4. i Mr Iladdow having addressed the Conrt. :. his Worship said tbat the evidence justified r him in coming to the conclusion that this p was a deliberate attempt on the. part of a plaintiff to lnalsc capital out of what h? - nrart have considered. at the time 1 to be a genuine mistake made - by Craig's carter. Haring regard 0 to all the evidence, his Worship was '• Inclined to the opinion that lie amount paid s into Court (£S> was not sufficient to cora- ; penaate ulalctiff for his loss, hut »t the •. STime lime he wan of opiijion that the claim 1 of £36 was grossly eseesslve. He assessed - the volno of the truck at £10, and gave I judgment for plaintiff for that amount less t> the amount paid into Court, 1 "Tn view of the extortionate demand," ■ added his Worship, "I shall not eliow any costs,"

JUDGMENT SUMMOXSBS. Orders on judgment summonses were made in the following eases:—H. T. Gibbous and Co. v. James Sniilh. £1 6/9; AlfreJ . Corbel f v. Henry Cameron. £1 9/4: K. Gerard v. Ueo. Hattteld. it 10/; B. J. M. liemp v. -William B. I'atterson. ill 111/: Geo. Carter v. 11. B. Ilnlme, £3 12/ (less a cerlain amount paid); W. Kershaw v. Walter DaTey, £1S 2/6;.. Sarah Elirman v. Albert Dorricott, £'£! 7/.