CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 280, 19 August 1908, Page 9

CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES'. Judgment for plaintiff by default of defendant was given in tho following cases:— Dresden Piano Co. v. John Oliver, £10s 6s. Bd., costs £1 10s. 6d.; Hunt and Stowell v. Norman James Leslie, £1 Os. Od., costs 55.; James Thomas Hall v. Robert Brown, £1 175., costs 75.; Laery and Co., Ltd. v. Arthur Henry Hewett, £S 4s. Bd., costs 18s. 6c1.; J. Myers and Co. v. Jas. M. Croucher, £12 13s. 9d., costs £1 10s. 6(1.; Palmer Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Nelson Ranger,- 125., costs only; samo v. Joseph Roland, £8 75., costs £1 3s. 6d.; S. Smith and Co. v. H. C. Matthews, £10 16s. Bd., costs £1 12s. 6(1.; Albert S. Watson v. John J. Eckhoff, £20, costs £2 65.; Wellihgto n Traders' Agency as assignees of H. Price and Co., Ltd. v. William Thomas, £8 14s. Bd., cpsts £1 lis. 6d.; Edward Lo Ray v. Thomas Johnston, £3 125., costs 10s.; Edward Collie v. William Ejirkes, 7s. 8(1., costs 7s. In' tho judgment summons case, John Albert Fox and C. Pratt and Co. v. George Jas. Hoffman, a debt of £17, debtor who failed to appear was ordered to pay on or before September 1, in default 14 days' imprisonment., ' (Beforo Mr.' W. P. James, S.M.) CLAIM FOR WORK DONE. John M'Gregor, plumber, sued Samuel Harris, builder, for £5 balance alleged to bo duo to plaintiff for work done for defendant. Tho greater part of tho evidence had been previously 'taken in Christchnrch, where defendant now resides. His Worship gavo judgment for plaintiff for £1 155., and costs 6s. Mr. Somervillo appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Kirkcaldio for defendant. ' AN OVERPAYMENT. William Noes, millwright, Wellington, claimed £4 10s. from A. Anderson, sawyer, and Frank Manning, land agent, which sum tho plaintiff alleged was an amount overpaid by him to tho defendants on the purchase of a pieco of land. Judgment was given for the plaintiff as against the defendant Anderson for £1 Is., with costs 6s. As against the defendant Manning tho plaintiff was non-suited, with costs £1 Is. Mr. Fitzgibbon appeared for tho defendants. (Bfforo..Dx-. A... M'Arthur, S.M.) < ■ DAMAGE TO A FENCE. ' ' Seliria Ellen Smith (Mr.'Dunn) sued John M'Callum (Mr. Blair) for. £15, damage to a fenco at Island Bay. It appeared that tho parties wero owners of adjoining sections, and defendant set'abolit erecting a house on his section. During tho building operations ho took a straining post out of plaintiff's fence and used it as a pilo for his house. Another post had sinco been put in, but plaintiff considered tho damage claimed had been dono to the fence. Defendant paid tho sum of ss. and costs 17s. into the Court besides replacing .tho post. After hearing tho caso for plaintiff, his Worship gavo judgment for tho. amount paid into tho Court, remarking thpt the amount of tho claim was ridiculously high; CLAIM FOR WAGES. Richard Clark sued Robert Bryant and Mrs. .L. Bryant for £27 55., a claim for wages said to bo duo to plaintiff for cooking for flaxmil] 'hands at tho Haast on the .West Coast. Plaintiff alleged that ho was engaged by defendants to do tho cooking for tho men at tho mill at £2 -ss. per week, and that ho had not been. paid. For tho defence it . \yas contended that qno George Lonham had taken a contract to work tho mill and produce flax for tho defendants at so, much , per ton.- Defendants continued that they wero under no liability to anyone except Lcnham, who was tho person who really engeged the men to work tho mill. His Worship reserved his decision. Mr. Dunn appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Neavo for defendants. REMOVAL OF SOIL. ■ Wm. George Somervillo (Mr. Dunn) sued Peter M'Donald (Mr. Dix) for £12 ss. 10d., valuo of top-dressing soil said to have been removed by defendant from plaintiff's property at Island Bay. Plaintiff alleged that

he had not given, anyone permission to removo the soil, but defendant contended that there had been arrangements. After hearing tlio evidence, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £2 10s., and costs £1 los. RESERVED JUDGMENTS.

ENGAGEMENT OF A NURSE. Judgment was given by Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., in the caso Dorothy Millburn, nurso (Mr. Richmond) v. Horaco and Elizabeth lUitber (Mr. Jackson), plaintiff alleged that sho was engaged by defendant to act as nurse for a period of four weeks, at a fee of £3 3s. per weclt, also that sho was at all times ready, willing, and capable to fulfil the contract, and that on or about February 19 defendant cancelled tho contract. Plaintiff therefore claimcd the sum of' £12 12s. damages for breach of contract. The event which formed the reason for the action occurred on February 17 or a fortnight before expectation, and plaintiff was then in tho Bawke's Bay district. Her belongings had been sent to Wellington, and she intended to' follow,, but plaintiff telegraphed her that her services would not be required. His Worship held that a simplo course for defendant would have been to engago a nurse temporarily, but that plan did not appear to have suggested itself to him. Tho Court did not think that it was right for a nurso to be a two days' journey away when the time hor services would bo required was lioar at hand, but a fortnight was a long way ahead, and plaintiff was preparing to como to Wellington. Hir, Worsliip did not think dofendant was justified in cancelling tho contract in tho way lie did, but at tho same time the Court could not but think plaintiff could have received other employment during some part of the four weeks sho had been engaged for. The measure of damages in such an action was tho amount of actual loss incurred. His Worship considered plaintiff mndo a fair offer whon sho agreed some time ago to tako £6 6s. to save trouble. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £7 ,7s. and costs £1 19s. POSSESSION OF A SEWING MACHINE. ' '. Judgment was also delivered in tho case of Janet Jones v. Walter Jas. Jonos. Plaintiff claimcd to bo the absolute owiier for her soparate use of a sowing mnchino and fittings, the total valtio of which did not exceed £11. The machine is now in possession of the defendant, who is her husband, and, according to the plaintiff,' ivas unlawfully detaining the machine. She had

demanded delivery of the machine, but defendant had refused to give it up. The plaintiff therefore claimed for possession of the machine.

It appeared that the machine was bought in June, 1900, under the hire system, and in tho_ plaintiff's name. • The parties wore then living together, which they continued to do until lately, when they separated. The defendant had insured his' personal effects,, and amongst them the machine, in his own name. Tno plaintiff asserted that silo acquired the machine through her separate earnings, which she received for washing, waiting, and keeping a boarder. The defendant maintained that the machine was purchased with his money, and that his wife did very little outside work, and that the boarder was not there anything like the time stated.by the plaintiff. _ To his Worship, it appeared that the plaintiff did contribute some, if not all, of the money to pay for the machine, and that not only was it bought in her name, but for some considerable time at least was recognised by the defendant as being the property of the plaintiff. The Court could not consider the insurance in the defendant's name as a transfer of the property from the wife to the husband. His Worship had no doubt that at least some considerable portion of the' money for the machine was paid out of the wife's earnings, and that it was looked upon by 'the husbdnd as his wife's property until unpleasantness arose between them. Moreover, the machine was bought in her name, and remained so "until the full amount was paid up. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for possession of the machine, or £7, with costs £2 6d. Mr. Bunny appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Lcvvey for defendant.