DEFENDED CASES.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 101, 22 January 1908, Page 11

DEFENDED CASES.

QUESTION OF COSTS. H.'.Price and Co., Ltd., sued Ean Wilson for 125.: 6d. This claim rose-out of a previous 'claim against defendant, who had, it was alleged, called on plaintiff's solicitor and ■ paid tho amount of tno original claim, the Y result being that the ease was allowed to bo struck out. - .'Plaintiffs now alleged that defendant had agreed to pay costs totalling 12s. 6d. on art adjournment. Dofendant denied having entered into any Buch 'agreement. His Worship held that plaintiffs should have put in their claim for costs at tho time they allowed the case to bo struck out. Judgment would bo entered for defendant without costs! Mr. W. Arnold appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; but defendant was not represented by counsel. ' (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) DAMAGE TO GOODS SENT ON APPROVAL. The' hearing of tho case, Eveline I. E.. Liddle arid Florenco Blanch Sandman (trading as " Aylmers") v. John Laidlaw, a claim for £2 for damage to two ladies' hats, obtainod on approval, was concluded. His Worship, in dolivoring judgment, said that there was no evidence to show that the damage was dono subsequent to the return of the.hats to the shop. Therefore, tho onus lay on defendant to show that the damage had not been dono whilst the hats were in his possession, and ho had failed to discharge that onus. Judgment would bo for plaintiffs for the amount of tho claim with costs totalling "235. Mr. Weddo appeared on behalf of plaintiffs, and Mr. Herdman for defendant. , : CLAIM FOR CHATTELS. Goorge Clark sued Margaret Elizabeth Manson for possession of various chattels valued at £25. Defendant connter-clainicd for £6 for wages as house-keeper and for children's hoard. _ Mr. Blair appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and Mr.. Von Haast for defendant. The cast for plaintiff was that lie authorised defendant to tako certain chattels to Wellington and to keep them for him until he completed the sale of his hotel at Toko. Dofendant, it was alleged, now refused to return some of the chattels in question, also other articles which sho had not been authorised to take away. Defendant, who is a sister of plaintiff,, ituted, in evidence, that, during the temporary absence of plaintiff's wife, sho assisted at plaintiff's hotol and, subsequently, boßrded his children. Plaintiff, who stated that he intended to give up the hotel and tako a house, helped her to pack up a number of articles which he asked her to tako charge of until ho required them. Plaintiff gave her.; several of tnc articles enumerated in the claim. When he asked her to return the other articles, she did so. Ilis Worship held that defendant had returned all the articles that were worth anything. He gave judgment for defondant on the claim-with costs £2 25., and for claimant on tho ■' counter-claim for £2, with costs totalling £1 3s.