CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 276, 14 August 1908, Page 9

CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiff bv default of defendant. was entered in the following cases:—. Samuel S. Williams v. George Farr, £2 18s. 9d., costs 125.; ComiMerciiir Agency, Ltd. and James Penrsall and Co. v. William H. Brown, £4 lis. 2d., costs 17s.A. S. Paterson and Co. v. F. H. Lambert, M. H. Brooking and E. Brooking, £70 145., costs £4 Us.; Albert Sydney Watson v. Henry Carmody; £5 18s. 3(1., costs £1 3s. Gel.; Commercial Agency, Ltd. and W. S.. Ross v. Ivanhoe Winteringham, costs only 75.; C. M. Banks, Ltd. v. James C. Jl'Farlano, 155., Costs os.; same v. David 51. Watson, 10s., costs 55.; same v. George J. Webster, 10s., costs 55..; Forde and Co. v. Theodore Woodward, £4 195., costs 10s.; same v. Lewis Naylor, £4 75., costs 10s.; A. Bauchop v. John Simpson, £20, costs £2 6s. j Floronco Nash v. William Aubrey, £3 15a., cost« 10s,; Commercial Agency, Ltd,

and Bing, Harris and Co., Ltd. v., William J. Wilson, £14 10s: 7d/, costs £1 ' 10s. 6d.; Gear' Meat Preserving and freezing Company, Ltd. v. Minnie Welsh/ '£1 12s. 5d., costs os.; W. and J. Staples and Co. v. William Parker, £23' Is. Sd., costs. £2 145.; The Scoullar Company, Ltd. v. Thomas Horley Brown, £15 55., costs £1 10s. ,6d..; John Chambers and-.Son, Ltd. v. James M'Kerifcie, £61 ss. Bd., costs £4 13s. 6;1. v. John Sandman,'£6 ss; 3d:, costsj£l Js. 6d. (immediate execution granted), " •' , _ JUDGMENT SUMMONSES: ' . . In the judgment'summons'case N.Z.-Ex-press Company;i Ltd. v. William J. Jamieson, a,' debt of £2 55.-6d.,-dobtoff who did* riot appear, lyas ordered to bay 1 tlioj am'ourit 'on' or before September 2, in) default! thtee'days' : imprisonment'! " ' v *:««*"•' W'4 *>• •« No orders were made in the following cases.:. —John Reed .v.: Charles Hv Smith, a. dpbt of £3 25.; Mulford jand Mowat v. Frederick, Bezar, £1 Bs. 8d;.; Brown,' Ewing arid Co:, Ltd. v. John D. Buchanan, ~£3 18s,. .1d..; Speight, Frier and Co. v. Archibald Lawrie, £•1 13s. 3d. ' «. .... ' .A; SHIPPING 'CXSE'."' SHIPPING COMPANY) ANTTHARBO'Cft," .BOARD.-!"-"'.'", T;'""'!

LIABILITY FORj FREIGHT. ~„J Reserved judgment wa!s giveii» by> Dri"Af M'Arthur,' S.M.,j in the oas'e 'of'i'thb.ifNeW'i Zealand Shipping Co., Lid/,-v; the 1 - Welling-1 ton Harbour "Board, a freight alleged to be due on"»certain^goods' shipped from London to Wellington bytW steamer Papanui land landed-from.'.theWesjsel' and placed in the custody iof, tKe'vßoard; Plaintiffs alleged that the .goods'should'haYecontinued uTthc hands of ( thp.!B.pard!!EUbjtet to' tho plaintiff Company ulien'; for;; freight: Defendant, as wharfinger', after receiving the goods}-«ifailed::t6_ reta,in them until tho said lien wasictiseharge'd," notwithstanding notico giveh-nurfder the provisions of tho .Merchant Sliifjping ißs4. Plaintiffs therefore claimed:!.that - they had lost tho sum of £64 '7s. 6d..

- ' Shortlyjput, the-facts ofvthe case' Wrta fus follow:—The Papariui reached.uWellingtbni'.a few days beforo 1 January .24-' Sortie _\of:.-: goods referred to in" the claim ive're "landed; before January 24; and .some.-oh-that'date. The goods were j placed I in-.fnthbuijHarbour,. Board shed and the consign_ees. haMed'&eir: bills of lading to .tho plaintiffs, and- receivedin exchange delivery orders.' Three qf the delivery orders were dated ? JHntia.ry-20 one January 21. These orders" were""handcd to the defendant Board,; and','Werd;-aii'.,><in-struction to hand over theugoo'dsl^Tho^ao-- 1 countant of tho plaintiff .iPonipany- iri'- ;: his evidence said, "as soon as we frive'tlid delivery' order our office is done wit-lvit iiiU'.general' way." From instructions reoeived.tfifo'm London, the plaintiff 1 Company. .IpUt ,ifcaj!stop: order on January 24. NotwithstandinE'ithis' order, defendants handed, the gooda'iover itothe consignees, and did not . detain them as-re-quested by the order of tho plaintiff.:; Company.'The practice was for tho Company!. to 'satisfy itself from the bill-of lading-arid I then hand; out the delivery order. In evidence foruthe defence it appeared that the": ::ac-cept-ed the drafts drawn on before they got the, bills, of blading, .which drafts included -freight ana • other .'changes,, and thus the consignees paid tho freight', to the London shippers. In exchange for their bills of lading they orders, and knew nothing of,,.theifreighft not! having been' paid in London; jrUe,;,d<j)jv-erj'.j orders wore handed to tho : delivery clerk'of . tho Harbour Board on January-. 21., andean*,-, uary 22, and the stop order,'op .January 21., It was stated that all thoj gqqds Jiad,. riot, been landed on January.. ®"--attfrqagh;'somej were landed on January 53.r-TheVdefendaiii; Board's, delivery, clerk sai&.'ipiae, threei.'packf,! ages had" been put on tho.,pait, ,but' veire. taken off ahd : not -deliverodj a"s;he had' the/ stop order iii'his possession any., of. tho goods were put on-tho'car.t. : there, was no stop o^der iv f)efor,9, tho' wero landed. He subsequently 1 ., referred- the"Freight for the said goods witlj .primage become duo on slupment ■ and to- be: paid in London .in . cash,, .withqufc "jdeiiucfcipn,.aliijp' lost or not lost.", The. bill of r 'lading. also" eluded;,another clause: "The shipv,shall,.liavo a lien upon the goods , fqr' all .freights'"and charges for which'the goods are liable ■ •under tho bill of lading.' This,, his' Worship considered, constituted a lien by express agreement. Adopting the -.words-0f..-.Chief■ Justice Tindal, in. Hewison' y'. Guthrie, ~ liis Worship thought thq ? qubstiqri in this; c'is.o must bo disposed of -upon l a" ground which-; would make it unnecessary "to consider many '! 'of the points which had come"'intfi; "discus-1 sion before the Court.- Ho was 'of "opinion that the plaintiff Company could not' succeed, inasmuch as' when they gave the delivery orders their' possession "'Of'' tlio\ gixKlsparted from them, and tho.'-lien, wfis'-'alto-gether gono and could-hot-be revived'by' a' stop order. His Worship proceeded -.'to"quoteauthorities, at length, for'.,'the ■'pre'c'idiffg opinion. Tho Court considered" the' delivery', orders given by tho Company l to -be 1 -'qn the; same footing as delivery without requiring' payment'. The Company assumed' 1 that ,they had been paid when they accepted the 1 biil ■ of lading in exchange for the deliveryorder, and further, the consignees thought honestly that tho freight' 'was". baid""wheh" they accepted the London ll 'drafts; freight and other charges; •and'-when'ono-of two innocent" parties must" suffer,'uliless there was some legal doctriilo to the 'contrary, he must suffer by whose act the^suf- 1 fering had been facilitated'/' and; •■•in; thoopinion of the Court, tho 'Company brought - ' about, or, at least, facilitated' "their;"qwii loss by accepting tho bill'-'of "'lading-'and-handing over the. delivery■ "order?.'iThoi do'--livery order,'in his Worship's 'opiniAn, iva's" a release of freight, and therefore' bethought tho lien was discharged. Judgment'would-be for defendants, with costs'£.3 4s.'; ; Mr. Myers' and Mr. Putnam - appeared for tho plaintiffs, and Mr. Gray and' : Mr." Westoii for' defendants. ■* •' A CLAIM EOR -I,o#^. (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur,-. sL'il.),,- ; t - f ! Mrs. C. Cain (Mr. Neavo) sued 1 -Mrs.C. Ramsay (Mr. O'Leary) : for - £1'16s;;: a,; claim for lollies alleged to' have been purchased at tho beginning of the year.' *. Evidence showed that the lilies, had been supplied to defendant's daughter,"'jyho 'had informed plaintiff that her <%;'6tlier would be responsible for payment. was given for defendant'with'ojft'.oosts; :

CONCERNING AN':|&PRESS, Lionel Caselberg (Mr. Meredith): proceeded against Charles S. Baillie'i (Mr. iHindmarsh) for possession of a van valuctl at i£'4sy, aiul the-sum of £26 rent. It tho claim was for the recovery! »6f iwcarty,which defendant held under:,'an- agreement, to hire or purchase. Absolutely. Nothing,- ifc : was alleged, had been paid* under-'the/agreeT ment. Plaintiff further claimed tbor'sum-'.of. £26 rent, alleged-to be dtie.for..ther.u'sa!.of: the cart. Evidence showed"that-.the dispute was purely a matter of 'accounts; cated through defendant not- having...kept, proper books. After hearing evidence at length his Worship reserved" his-*<tecMoftniir' order to look into the accounts- between the parties. , ~ ~- .\

A BUILDER'S CLAIM, : ' Barr and Shaw, builders ;: '(Mr. ; ' claimed £6 10s. from Thos.P.".'Lyons, car- 1 ripgo proprietor (Mr. Neave)'; fox-'tfegaifs'lfoa' house. Tho .sum of £4 10s. was'paid .into! Court. Evidqnce .showed ;|ihaf- : no f contract' price had been agreed upoii'between'tlid parties. Plaintiffs sent in ajV','account; fbr."£G 10s., but defendant, considered' 1 the, charge was unreasonable, and alleged"'thaV l c6rlam' work stipulated for had not b'teh''doiie. , Worship thought, tho amount'paid/into Court was. fair value for the. work done. • Judgment would -bo for plaintiff; ftsf&f/lOsJ"*. j A LADY'S IIIDIxd!,HABIT/ - (Before Mr. wl P. James,- S-M.).'-..; ■/, I Goldbloom Bros. (Mr. D! Jackson) ; sued Chas. Osborne Burgoyne " Lamb,' ' farmer,' Pahautanui (Mr. Cracroft-W;lson), for; £9 os.. 6d., cost of . a riding habit, supplied, Ijv plaintiffs to defendant's! >!%•.'•' Defendant, allegod that the habit did hot fit,' and 'after hearing the evidence his Worship gave judgment tor defendant with costs £2 2s.