THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17225, 16 August 1921, Page 5

THE COURTS.

■ -. f- 1 ■' SUPREME COURT. ■ CIVIL SESSION'S.- . (Before his Honour Mr Justice Herdman.) NURSING CHARGES QUESTIONED. In Annie Catherine Hammond (Mr E. W. | White) v. Alfred James Malley .and Herbert Hammond, the trustees of the late John Benson (Mr A. T. Donnelly), the main point in dispute was the reasonableness, or otherwise, of certain charges for nursing the deceased, John Benson. Dr. W. H.' Simpson, who was deceased's medical adviser between January 20thj-1920, and November Bth, M2O, stated that Mrs Hammond was a qualified nurse. Witness described the nature of deceased's complaints; they included bowel. and bladder troubles. Benson would have had to pay for nursing, from the period between March 29th and "November Bth ( at the rate of £l2 12s per week; in addition plaintiff'did certain operations, usually done by a medical man, which, if done by a medical man, would have involved an expense of £l4 14s per His. Honour remarked that it seemed to resolve. itself into a question whether plaintiff did the work. . ' , Mr Donnelly said he was contesting the charges for the purpose of • protecting tho trustees, the beneficiaries not being residents in the Dominion. What struck counsel as remarkable was ,that plaintiff, in addition to nursing Benson day and night, had. carried on the ordinary work of her house. Dr. Simpson stated that plaintiff did do ', the day and night nursing and looked after her household duties—so much so that it •affected her health. Replying to Mr Donnelly, witnesß stated that the fees fixed by the Nurses' Association for a day nurse were £4 4s per week; the fees for a night nurse wero tho same. Plaintiff gave evidence as to the services Tendered and. stated that ordinarily she got £6 6s per week for nursing. , Reply to Mr Donnelly, witness stated tnat Mr Benson left.her a legacy of £IOO. Mr Donnelly did not call evidence but, briefly addressed ..the Court. ■ His Honour said he could not see that there was' anything unreasonable in, the charge; plaintiff had given services vfcch, in ordinary circumstances, would have been given T>y two nurses. Judgment was for plaintiff for the amount claimed, £325 18s, with costs as per scale, i ALLEGED BREACH OF LEASE. John McGrath (Mr F. S. Wilding) claimed damages from Florence Jane Hills in respect of refusal to give possession of premises in Madras street, Sydenham (six rooms and shop) which, under an agreement of June 9th last, she had leased to plaintiff. The rental was £7B per annum and the term was for three years. Possession was to have been given on June 1 27th. Defendant did not appear and was not represented by counsel. After hearing evidence his Honour said that £SO would be a reasonable sunv in the circumstances. Judgment was given for that amount with costs. ALLEGED WRONGFUL DETENTION OF P.N.'S. Ernest Buhner Priestly 'WickaCMro. T. J. Alpers, with him Mr E. W. White) eought to recover from Thomas Andrews, sen. Mr J. D. Godfrey) fifteen promissory notes, totalling £984 7s 6d, allegedly plaintiff to be wrongfully detained by defendant. Mr Alpers outlined the case, which arose out of the sale and re-sale of the business known as the Medico-Electric Institute. Plaintiff purchased from Leonard Andrews (son-in-law of defendant) for £2150, paying £IOOO in cash, and giving sateen P-n-» for the remainder; each p.n. was for £65, 12s 6d. About a year afterwards plaintiff alleged misrepresentation against Leonard Andrews, who arranged for the re-purchase of the business by his father-in-law, the defendant. In the original draft for the re-sale reference was made to the return of fifteen ?■»•/», *** at defendant's request this was omitted from the agreement ultimately arrived »*•«"?: dant, however, promised to return the p.n.s tone had become due and had been paid). Defendant had stated that the p.n. s were in the bank, but though requested to, do^so on wweral occasions, he never handed tnem over, them! 7 Plaintiff, in agreeinz to re-sell for £1248 10s, did so, relying on defendant carrying out his promise to return the p.n.'s. Some of .the amount^ for the of the business wa» lepre-

sented by p.n.'s given fay defendant. When the first of -defendant's rbl.'s fell due defendant proposed to off-set it with one of plaintiff's p.n.'s. , v ' Plaintiff gave evidence on the lines of counsel's opening. j Arthur Moore Heaps, law clerk, gave evidence regarding the agreement and the manner in which it was'arrived at. Defendant, when the draft. agreement was read to him, - said that lie wanted a simple agreement between himself and Wicks; and that was done. Defendant bad promised to hand, over Wicks's . p.n.'s as soon' as he (defendant) sifpied the- later' agreement.- When witness aeked for the p.n.'s-defendant eaid he -would. get them from the bank to hand them over the following day; this defendant did not do. There had been no suggestion by defendant that Wicks 'a p.n.'a were to off-set defendant's. Before defendant signed the agreement witness was certain -that defendant knew that the total purchase money had been reduced by £984 on the understanding that defendant handed back WickVs p,n.'» to that amount. Replying to ;Mr Godfrey, witness said it was not possible that defendant was under the impression that there was to be an exchange ofp;n.'s. Opening for.the defence Mr Godfrey said that defendant's; story had- been all along consistent., Defendant bought the MedicoElectric business, some years.ago, for;£8O0; since then it had changed hands on many occasions. At the end of 1920 defendant heard from his son-in-law that the business was for sale;:in January, 1921, his daughter returned from Australia and it was suggested that the business should be bought by defendant, and be-run by his daughter. Defendant, when Heaps and Wicks submitted the draft agreement, objected to the termß; he also objected to the name of Leonard Andrews appearing in it, to the "price, ana to the mass of figures put before him. Defendant agreed to purchase the property for £650, plus.£s9o odd, the proceeds of the sale of an X-ray engine to the Hawera Hospital Board. There was some talk about exchanging p.n.'s, but defendant did not understand that besides £650 in cosh (that was £IOO in cash and p.n.'s for the remainder), plus £598 10s (the proceeds of the .X-ray engine) that he wa« to hand over to plaintiff p.n.'e amounting to close upon £IOOO. Defendant was hot in a position at the time the agreement was entered into, to get Wicks's p.n.'s immediately because they were in the possession of the bank as security for his overdraft of £3OO or £350. ;-. Defendant gave evidence on the lines of counsel's remarks. Defendant stated . post tively that he never' agreed to any other terms except those in the agreement which ho signed. Witness explained that Leonard Andrews gave him Wicks's p.n.'s in payment of' loans' witness had made to him. Mr Alpers cross-examined regarding Leonard Andrews's repayment of loans to defendant. Asked why he was still keeping the p.n.'s, defendant said that there was a matter of £4OO between himself and his son-in-law , which was advanced before, the sale to Wicks. ' Beatrice Florence' Andrews, in evidence, stated that her father bought the business on her behalf; she paid £l4O in cash. ■ To Mr Alpers: Her father had sold the business, with her consent, to Emmett for £IOOO. Her name did • not - appear in any documents connected with the sale. The business had been her father's, except when Wicks had it, from -the time he bought itfrom Morris till he sold it to Emmett. Counsel addressed the Court. His Honour - said he thought the plaintiff was entitled to succeed. He was called upon to determine on which side truth lay. Wicks and Heaps—the last mentioned quite a disinterested party—both declared very positively, and distinctly that defendant .perfectly well understood, that one condition of the re-sale —probably one of the most important —was that the fifteen p.n.'s were to bo handed back. His Honour commented on the fact that Leonard Andrews—who, he thought could have thrown some light on the transaction—had not been called. ] He had no doubt at all that butfor the promise to surrender the p.n.'«, Mr Wicks would not have signed the agreement to sell to defendant at £1248 10s. Judgment would be for plaintiff and an order would be made requiring defendant to deliver up the fifteen p.n.'s forthwith. Plaintiff was' allowed costs as in an action to recover £984 7a 6d; second counsel £lO 10s; and witnesses' expenses and disbursements. .. The Court adjourned till 10;30*o'clock this morning. • INCHAMBERS. . Mr Justice Herdman granted probate in the estates of the following deceased persons: —Mary Saddler, Sydenham v Mr W. J. Sim); Willard Whitmore leitt, Christ'church (Mr A. T- .Jonneliy); Frederick Bay lis, Tai Tapu, (Mr C. E. Salter); Margaret Woods, Addington (Mr W. H. Woods); William Henry

Porter, New, Brighton (Mr G. W. Smithiwn);. Matilda Currie, Timaru (Mr' F.' Rolleston); Richard William Raithby, Crushington.(Mr H. P. Lawry) Bridget Josephine MoHugh, Reef ton (Mr H. P. Lawry). v MAGISTERIAL^ MONDAY. ' (Before Mr S. B. McCaxlHy, S.M.) ATTEMPTED THEFT.OF COAL. Charles Saunders, aged 74 years, was charge ed with having stolen two. bags of coal, the property of the' West-port Coal Co, r Sub-Inspector Simpson said that the accused was detected filling coal into two bags, but the coal had : not been taken out of. the yard.. There was ; nothing, previously known against the accused. - .... L, Accused was convicted and ordered to come, tip for sentence when called upon, and was placed.'on probation for twelve months. DISMISSED. Emile Filbert, a Belgian (for whom Mr_ A.Brown appeared),. was charged with haying assaulted Elbert Arthur Stewart by inking him with his fist. :; • , Mr Brown said that the informant av sired to withdraw the charge,,as-he heheVed he had been ill-advised when he laid the information. . After hearing the evidence the Magistrate dismissed the. information. ' REMANDED. , John O'Calloghan (Mr W. F. Tracy), charged with having, on * August 6th, stolen a bicycle valued at £7, the ■ property of Thomas Crosby, was. remanded to appear on August 24th. VAGRANCY. Mary Steele, charged with being a.rogue and vagabond, in that" Bhe was found by ni"ht without lawful excuse on the premises of the West Christchurch School, stated that she couid not get. into any hotel, and she bad no other place to go. The case was ad- I joumed for three months, provided the defendant remained in the Salvation • Army j Home in the meantime. . ' civil BUSINESS. Judgment by default, with costs, was given in each of' tho following civil cases:—H. Pannell and Co. v. J. R. Laurenson, £2 17s 6d- the Public Trustee as the administrator of estate of Henry Jones v. Elizabeth Bter wart £3 2s 7d; "Skelton, Frostick and Co., < Ltd v W. J. Adcock, £l4 7s 2d; Dalpoty and Co., Ltd. t M. Milson, £2 14s; Florence Collinson v. Robert Beattie, £8 ss; W. Lochhead v. L. Andrew, £l6; Ashby, Bergh and Co., ltd. v. H. L. Martin, £23 2s 9d; New Zealand Farmers' Co-op. Association of- , Canterbury, Ltd. v. Stanley William Monson, £ll3 18s 4d; Mrs C. H. T. Allen v. P Ramsey, £9 16s; J. Tranter and Sons v. G "Wellburn, £3; Frederick Everard Dale v H. Kemara, £2; T. H. Haywardv. Sid. PierFon. £6 4s Id: Fletcher Milkin? Machine Co., Ltd. v. H. Moore, £IBO 8s lOd. T W. Stephenson. (Mr F. D. Sargent) claimed from Edward Cray (Mr R. A. Cnthbert), !he sum of £2 16s 6d, being amount due on the purchase of fix lambs. Judgment 'was giver for' plaintiff, with costs. * | F W. Cochrane (Mr Sarsent). claimed £27 7s from Edwin Read (Mr W. F. Tracy), balance of board,, rent of shed, and sundries. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £l3 58 Gd. with roata. i.. ■ « ' KAIAPOI. (Before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M.) William Cowley and Charles Driscoll, en charges of riding bicycles on the footpath, were each fined 6s and costs _ 7b, and on charges of riding bicycles' at night without lights they were fined 10s. each and costs. John Gibson, for cycling on the footpath, was-fined 6s and costs 7s. 1 Albert Te Rangi, charged with procuring liquor while prohibited, was fined 20s ana costs 7s. J. W. Barnard, butcher,, was charged by Inspector Munro with five breaches of the Slaughtering and Inspection Act. For Jailing to keep a jecord of stock slaughtered he was fined £2 and coßts; and £5 and costs on each of three charges of failing to keep, tho premises, instruments, utensils, and surroundings in a clean and sanitary condition. On a further charge of failing to concrete the yard he was convicted and ordered to pay costs.