CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 175, 18 April 1908, Page 15

CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before' Sir. G!~Riddq]l, s'm.) , ' UNDEFENDED CASES ■ Judgment was entered ■ for plaintiff by tlo- <>•*.. • ■ 'fault : of .defeyidant ,jn tho ■ lolloping ayil cases :-r-Wellington Fresh Food and :lco. Co.; ' Ltd.,-v., :Wilmot C. Quinnell, £22_ 13s. 9d., oosts,. £2,/14s. ; , "William Charles 'Prico v. j / 1 Fredenck : Butcher,v£2 us., costs 125.; Harry ...i Gotheb. v>. Edjvard. ■ costs i ; , £1.10s.; 6d. ;vWilliam Ltd.; v. Francis Kipling Dixon, ,£7: v lls.r'3d., costs , lOs. ji F. T.aino rv. Williarti Hague, Bs. 6d., / ■ ■ costsiTsrjfE. ,«W. Wilton and-'CQ.: vuWilliam' , Elliptfc, £3 os '7d.i costs ~123 > Dresden, Piano. Co.-v. Michael Mahonoy,£l9 , 75.10 d,, costs £L lT3s; 6d.-; Oliff-oji Henry Dickorson, trading, as. Dickcrson aad Co., V.' ■ Charles. J. Bouse, £4 125..-3d.,: costs .<lO5. ; ■ Barber, and Co. v.: Thomas P: Lvons, 13s, 9d',' ' costs ,os.Commercial ~AgoncyLtd. ; ; and ,J5-' W. MilU and./ Co., Ltd., v.: Samuel Cleaver, £6 oosts. £1- 3s. Gd.: Peter Hutsoiv . and Cos, v.*, J. AY.: .Thompson;.' £10i , ... ;5». ,6d.,. ooats ,£1 lQs. 6d.; Blundell Bros Ltd / v'.Johu B Dalton, .£ll9 3s_lQd ■!.: costs.£s'l9s. 6d.; Commercial.Agency, Ltdv -:"! and 1 ;\v. Mills and Co.,' Ltd.,' v.'Antonio* • : DaUaharca, £29 3s. 'lOd.Vcests £3* 2s;; Mar-' *•:•'. ' v. Elizabeth E:- Murphy'; •£s' »•: 10s. 7d,, costs 1,85.-; Aitken;-iWilsoii' and Co' " i, v. John Jones,".£4l 65.:4 d., costs £2 14= 'tho.■judgment summo;is::caso of '•Mary . Ann Jennie v. James Gerald I'etets,) a debt* :of £2 65.) no: order waa> made.' *. '*

' ; 'A DEAL IN FRUIT. - Judgment; was also gnW by'Mr: W. •G. . Eiddellj the case of J.'H. Manttan: (Air. •'Von :Haast) -v.; A-. J; J; Boulfcori (Mr ■ Neavo), a claim for £12 6s. Cel., 111 respect of a-.dtial: in-fruit. After reviewing tho evidence, IJia Worship gave judgmentor plain-' . tiff fdr £2 10s:, and costs £4 95., ltes £1-6s. costs :'of''-''defendant'oh'|cliaiig : ojbf . Tenuis. ' vTENANT V LANDLORD. 1 ' Mr.; W. G. f ßiddoll, S.M.j de- - . uyereid reserved judgment.in^ho-ci&.bfctwecii Annie' Elizaofith. Clark and. Oliver AV.ootton - ;,Claytonv a- claim for^2oi;ppJ|eai6h'\'of''chat-' tols,-and:£2o.for/distraint of-goods-for rent v.-'His^Worshin;stated 'that there-\ver6 two : questions ■ decided in tlio case. -Tho firist.wai?. wither/,defendant accepted- .Mr.' ■, Clark. iwilh plaintiff.'is his: tehantVin; substitution for Mrs. Clark. Tlio ■ onus of proof out, upon th^'plaintiffln the opinion' of , • tho Cdnrt, tho/oridcMO did not prove thai the ,contH^ ! : M§ •' teiafl, afid' it wSuld. appear ... alsb- that ;there ,was no direct - a'cquiosoenco -. on the* part of .defehdafit to afcfcCfifc'Mr; Clark as his and abSiflVe Mrs. Clark from' , furffieK liability introspect-':'of.'- rent,•' - Tho Coartf /thexeforoj foiind that'it had hot been ■ profud bW plaintiff that such a substitution - actuallyvfcqok ;j)Jace.The second question wa3" ; whether a piano ' seized by defendant was . held; bjr, plaintiff in trust for her'i t-hr'66 , daughter; 'and. was, therefore, not liable to seizure for reijt. There' was ho documentary, - .evidence as to< ; the original ownership, of tho : • ■ Mistrumerit, which wad in the custody of and had 'been ,undertjioj control, of plaintiff .for ; years*. Tho fact of plaintiff. dealing with tho.piano,_jind_that >her.. sons -had-stated-that- it- . was regarded as belonging, to tho family wero : strong.' against,its "ownership' being /hew,; vested , ( iir, hOr: three-daughters;-' Plaintiff had not clearly-proyed lier children's' title, or that she held tho instrument in trust' for tliem. Judgment would therefore bo for tho defendant, with two giliri'eas costs.:' MiHindmarsh appeared'for plaintiff, and Mr. Ward for defendant.