S.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 213, 5 September 1912, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

(Before Mr C. C. Kettle. S.M.; BROKEN PLAT E-Ci LASS. A claim for £_;<■ 7.1 was brought by riillUpps and luipey. ~-laz.i■;,.. agalUBT mc New JSealind Shipping Company lor breach lof agreement In referou.e 10 a case of ; plate-glass lauded at Auckland iv July, 1910, 'from the defendant company* steamer '■ Or.iri.it being alleged that a portion of the I glass, La the cite win delivered to piainti!ls! in a damaged oLdirinii. SI: A. E. Skelloa I ; appeared for the piaii.'il£fs aud Mr li. P. 1 Kir-fciuoikl for tin ri<?f._'ndants The evidence (or the plaintiffs was to the offeor that rl:e glass »-a» landed under ;Jl3 supervision of .1 representative of the firm, i anil a receipt nis signed. Wboii the lorr;.- ' ijarryiu,; the ca.se had been removed about ' ."id yarded from the snip's side it was noticed J thsu a batten on the outside of the eauo , lrad l>eeu driven in. aud that there were | marks upon the wood as if another case had : pressed against It nt ib.ll point.. When tbe | case was ojn.'ui'd a number of .sheers wore ; ioiiwl to bo broker.. the nuount of the' claim being tlieir value at a fair estimate. ' Expert evidence wa? also called In respect ' ;of the fto-aagn of tUe case, with others. liv the Miip s hoid. : Mr Richmond then moved for a mn-. suit on the ground that the p<a.ntll£s had ; failed to prove m-gligence 00 the pan of ; th" defendants., which was necessary to ' 1 br:r.g the action outside the. exceptions in i , rr.e bill of lad!n;.'. which set forth th.it . ■ glass was to be carrier] at the shippers" ■ ri-k. The onus of proving ne?ilf;enco. he i ' claimed, lay with the plalDtlffs. whes -, I ; "WiUPI ha.l not even alleged That tl|?r«: j : was ne?ligenn-. ; Mr S-ke.lte-n. la opposing th» motion. ! claimed that toe exemption clause in thi" bill of ladlnjr could noi emml. He «lsi I isubinltterl thar tUe e.vlden.-f ho 'bad ad- . di!'*ed showed lii.v tbe defendants wee? j ,; snilfr of negllgfiurp. ; Tbo Magistrate said that the rasv was ; one vchlrli w;is n*r *->*ver'' , «'l by .1 v of tbr; I numerous authorities filed by counsi , [ and lie Diu>t reserve l:i< decision ou th« u»JI suit no!;,. I The case was then arijourred pending hi? | j dels lon. I BfTlNfi A boat. j j The pur'hnsf , of a fishing bo.i» wns tho I orifrin of the action broncht aßainst Booth. ! I -Donald and Co.. machi ier,v mercba.pts. i by David l'nllarrt 'luis proprietor, of Wiipti, i who sought to recover £50, lieinj; a portion ! of the purchase money, and t'lo rlatnage.s. ! Mr 31. <i. Mri.;re£or appeared for the plaintiff, and I'r. H. l>. Bamford for the defeu- ! da tits*. The plaintiff smtol that e.irlr in (lie year he was in tll-heaUh, nnd was ordered a se-a voyapce. This lie did nol feel lie raubi' nfford. ami decided to acquire a flshitiK boat, i He raff that th"c defendants \vere advertis-i ing an auxiliary fifhirij; >ioat for Mile, and; after Inspection the craft, purnhaMHl it on I April .SOth last, paying i'< deposit, and i I subsequently £15 on account, the price being! tDn. On taking the boat out be found that] !it was in a very leaky condition, anrl he bad; ito take it to a hoathisllder at Whancarel. I I The bottom pla-nks were foil ml t" be rotten. I I the caulkinc inJ>slnc. and the boil generally I In »neh 8 state that repairs vere impossible. , IHe hal Mitiscouently hauled the boat up in I a tidal ere-)., as nothing more could be dove with i: The purchase Mil- made under a I hire purchase acrcemeni. n-hli-h be resrarded j Ips a bill of sale. The water wa> vow tiotrInc iv and out of the boat Inn he felt that; I th.' engine to save it from damage by water. IHe claimed that I lie boat was useless for I die purpose f>>r which he hint bought her, ' i viz.. for u>o as a fishing boat. I Percival <;. M.-luto.-h. lioatbiiilrter. of I Whaiißarel. corroborated the plnintUTsi stalenipnt a- to the host's condition. He I considered that it was about fifteen years 1 old. and of amateurish builil. The .-anlkinc was hancinß nut of the seams, imri ttipri? ' was an u-sj-o of sheet copoer and zluc I tacked on to the bottom He considered J i that the boat reached Whancurel froi* \ I Auckland (•)■ good lurk in stiiklus lino! weather. j Mr McGregor said Hint his case rested on 1 a breach of implied warranty in that the | boat was iinnt lor the purpose Tor which it was sold. Charles H. Scott, actins local manager for the defendants, said that his firm did not usually deal in boats. In thin case the owner asked them to sell it for him for £5*5. as he iould not meet his payments for the engine, which they had supplied. Tbe plalutiff answered their advertisement as slated, aud agreed to take the boat at th.c price asked. The previous owner of t!ip boat, called b>- the defence, said that it w.is in good, condition and quite sound nhon hi* disposed i of it. a;:d was 11 thoroughly pood tlshing j boat. The r.i&e was adjourned till Monday, to enable the defendant company's manager to appear and give Monro. Mr. Kptllp I i<lso ordered an inspect ..f ta» boat, us s-hp now lies near whauwurci. j CLAIM FOR t'LoL'lilil.Nlj. R. Tj-Ddall. l-iuieer. of Tatuaki West, claimed £1 10' from C. Large, a oarpeuu , .-,! of St. Heller's Buy. tho claim being furl balance d:;e to him for ploughing a patldock for the defendant. The plaintitr said that it was 3preed that he slxonlcl receive £.?• 10' for the work, but the defendant afterwards refused to pay him mure than £2. The defendant denied making any agreement, and called evidence to show that the work was not worth more than £2. Mr. Kettle said that he was not satisfied that an agreement had hec-n made. He considered that, ou the evidence, the wort was worth L- 10 . aud he would give ' judgment for plaintiff for 10/ and costs. 'He also remarked that t.he case was a silly one, and oupht (o have been settled out !of Court. A. CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM. [ I A clajru for £:sr. damages for breach I of contract wits brought by F. li. Xioore against the Ness. Vale I-and' Company. Mr. JA. E. Skeleton appeared f.>r the plaintiff. I |aDd Mr. W. (i. rtii-ti.ti for the defendants. I The evidence for the plaintiff was to the effect that he look n contract for work at the defendants' mil! near I'leredon, ami that under the i-oun-.-.i all material had to be supplied by them. After he bad gimp on with the work for some time the supply of materials ■ eased, and he was forced to stop work, The defence was thnt the work wn? valueless, and that the company was quite justified in cancelling the contract. On Mr. Kettle's suggestion, the case was adjourned til! Tuesday nest. t n enable an independent espert to assess the value of the work done, and it was agreed that the damages for brencli of concrar.t should afterwards come up for consideration. ... l muwll