CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 274, 12 August 1908, Page 9

CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) . UNDEFENDED CASES. ; Judgment for plaintiff by dofault of defendant was entered in the following civil catesC. M. Banks, Ltd., v. Ulumba Tea Co., £3 16s. 3d., costs 10s.; Wellington City Council v. Jessio Cameron, £8 4s. 2d., costs 95.; C. and A. Odlin Timber and Hardware Co., Ltd., v. Henry Austin Gazzard, £7 7s. 5d., costs £2 Bs. 6d.; Wellington City Council v. John Doig, 17s. 9d., costs 75.; John Wyatt v. William Park, £'29 Is. 10d., costs £2 145.; Young and Tripe v. Wm. Moffatt, £1 75., costs 55.; Laery and Co., Ltd., v. Wylio and Co., £21 9s. 7d.J costs £2 45.; H. G. Anderson and Co. v. Ann Brennan, 18s. 9d., costs 65.; Alexander Dunn v. Arthur . H, Styles, £28 195., costs. £3 Is.; Wellington Traders Agency, as assignees of H. Oscar Hewitt and Co. v. Eva King, £2 10s., costs 10s.; Craig and Quee v. Gazzard Bros., £7 Is. 5d., costs £1 6s. 6d.; Stewart Timber, Glass, and Hardware Co., Ltd., v. Jas. Wilfrid Rough, £46 3s. 3d., costs £2 14s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. In the judgment summons case Edward' Collie v. Harry Thorns, a debt of- 19s. 7d., debtor was ordered to pay on or before August 25, in default 48 hours' imprisonment. No' orders were made in tho cases H. Baldwin and -Co. v. Wm. Chas. Aubrby, a debt of £16 15s: 3d.; Samuel Smith and Col v. Sidney Hislop, a debt of £2 18s. CLAIM FOR GOODS SUPPLIED. Reserved judgment was given by Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., in tho case of the United Farmers' Co-operativo Association, Ltd. (Mr. Monteath) v. James Rod (Mr. AVeston),- a olaim to recover the sum of £36 13s. 9d., balance alleged to be owing for goods sold ai.d delivered. , Defendant admitted that tho goods wero delivered, but contended that they were'supplied to a company of which ho was tho chairman. It appeared that thero was a previous company or syndicate which had beon-unablo'to keep its financial arrangements with-plaintiffs, but its successor, of which defendant was chairman of directors, (lid not t-rtko'over -its liabilities. , The question of_ giving credit to tho now company iwas raised, and ' plaintiffs' managor- stated that ho' told defendant -that' -plaintiffs would riot opori''an account with' the company. Goods wore eventually supplied, plaintiffs alleging that thoy wero supplied because defendant had, it was understood, guaranteed' payment. Defendant denied that ho was ever asked to incur liability himself, or that ho made himself personally responsible. Ho PQi'tainly signed tho first order.at tho request of plaintiffs, but was never asked for any further order or responsibility beyond this first one. His AVorship held that there was a direct, conflict of evidence between tho manager of tho Association and defendant, and in view of tho fact that plaintiffs received payment'from the company of a month's account after the ono ordor was given by defendant ; of tho order having. reference. to only ono parcel of goods and of some of the entries and invoices being made out direct to tho company, His AVorship was of opinion that no- contract Was arrived at between plaintiffs and defendant whereby tho latter was made personally liable. Defendant had confessed for tho amount due for tho ono order given by him, with costs 10s. Judgment would, therefore, bo given for plaintiffs for the £5 10s., and costs 10s.

. NURSING FEES. Dorothy Jlilburne, nurse, sued Horace Graham Rutter and Elizabeth Rutter for £12 125., damages for alleged breach of contract 1 in reforenco to an engagement to do certain nursing work for four weeks from March 1, 1908, at £3 3s. per week. Evidence showed that plaintiff was in Hastings at the time tlie nurso was required,' and another uurso had •to bo engaged, and plaintiff was then advised that her services would not be required. Plaintiff contended that she was always willing and ready to come down, but was not' telegraphed for. His Worship reserved his decision to consider a law'point as to what damages, if any, could bo awarded, which was raised'by counsel'for''tlie defence. Mr.' Richmond appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. D. ..Jackson for defendants. CONCERNING A SEWING MACHINE. Janet Jones (Mr. Bunny) sued her husband, Walter James Jones, driver (Air. Levvey) for possession of a sewing machino, valued at £11. Tho statement of claim set out that plaintiff was tho absoluto owner of tho machine and fittings, and that tho machine, now in tho possession of defendant, was being unlawfully detained by him, plaintiff having demanded delivery of . tho machine and boon rofused.. Evidenco showed that plaintiff was living apart from her husband. ' Plaintiff alleged that she had paid for the machino by .instalments with , money she had earned herself. Defendant said he had supplied tho money for the machino. Tho agreement for payments for the machine was drawn up in tho name of plaintiff, but the machine was insured in tho name of defendant. Aftor hearing legal argument, His Worship reserved his decision."