CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 282, 21 August 1908, Page 4

CIVIL BUSINESS.

" "(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) ) i UNDEFENDED CASES. ; jJudgmeiit;.for : plaintiff by default of deifondant was entered in the following caSes:— ;A|frod George Manthel v. Joo Hands, £2, : costs..'l2s.'i :Mulford : and Mowat v. John .Giles, £3 os. Sd., cost's 135.; Commissioner of Taxes v. Andrew Compton, £5 10s., costs ;B§.; same v. Alfred Wildon Harrison, £13 lss., costs 155.;. same v. .Francis Loudon, £11, costs 155.; same v. Sing Ked, costs only, 55.; N.Z. Express Co., Ltd., v. J. H. W. Angei-stein, £9 13s. 3d., costs £1 9s. 6d.: John M .Wilson v. Wm. E. Swain, £8 10s., costs £1 3s. Gd.; P. Hayman and -Co. v. l'asman Steinmuller, £9 14s. lid., costs £1 3s. -6d.; Commercial Agency, Ltd.,..v. Wm. Park, '£27 , 125. -9d.; Costs £2 14s. j Young's Chemical. Co. v. ]£. Williamson and Co.,' £4 Is. 4d., costs 10s_.; Sharland and Co., Ltd., }'• Gjlbort H. Price. £3 .7a. 5d., costs 125.: Wellington Meat Export Co., Ltd., v J J Pattersoit;' trading as "Wylio. and Co., £3i 10s., costs £2.145. j Commercial Agency Ltd and tho 'VWairarapp, Daily,Tiinds'.' v.-Rouii-tree and Co., £G 10s., costs £1 3s. Gd.; same v. Kathleen Halle;' £7., costs £l 3s i6d • International Agency Co..v. I{. p..HqvvelVand C 0.,. Ltd., £15 .ss. Gd.,- costs £1 10s. Gd • Wm. Ryan v. Mary Evittn, < £4 • ls„ costs 14s. ■ '" ■ ". . LOST CHAp\ ' ' The whole of tfte' afternoon was occupied with the partially heard case of S. Rowe and Sons, Ltd., v. _tho Union Steam Ship Co., a claim for £75, being the value of a. consignment of chaff which went astray through tho alleged negligence of defendants between Picton and Wellington. A number of further witnesses were examined, .and the

hearing of evidenco was concluded about 5.30 p.m., when an adjournment was mado until Monday afternoon, when legal argument will bo heard.

Mr. D. Jackson appeared for plaintiffs, Mr. Levi for defendants, and Mr. Weston watched tho case on behalf of the .Wellington Harbour Board.

RESEEJED JUDGMENTS. ■ MINING VENTURES. CLAIM FOR SPECIAL - SERVICES. "A PREPOSTEROUS CLAIM." An interesting judgment was delivered by Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., in tho caso Arthur Conningham v. Mrs. Ellen .Clark. His Worship said:—"The plaintiff; .who called himsolf a miner and agent, sued itho defendant Mrs. Clark, a dealer. Ho sued thus:—For special services in specially securing (and acting as agent) the special quartz claim situated in the Armchair Creek,. Marlborough, known as 'The Tasman's.Choice Claim,' late ' Duke of Cornwall,' of 100 acres Closely watching claim, attending Blenheim for purpose of giving instructions to solicitor, also attending Warden's' Court at' Blenheim on three different occasions, posting application in claim and retaining it there ponding the hearing of tlio 'application; 7 From February 27, 1008, to May 2, 1908 —G5 days at 20s. per day—£6s; pegging of claim, £5; travelling expenses to and from Armchair Creek to Blenheim four times, and having to , remain in Blenheim 12, days,-£lG;'remunera-tion for introducing and securing £50: total, £136. '

"A more preposterous claim it lias never been my lot-to hear of," continued his Worship, " let alone adjudicate upon. Tho parties were jointly interested in another claim, the good qualities of which they abandoned after tho defendant had spent a coiisidcrablo sum in exploiting it. That sum or a very fair proportion of it found its way into the hands of. tho plaintiff. On the advice of the plaintiff they determined to transfer their attention to another claim not far away, the defendant, as in" iho" former caso, finding the necessary funds for so doing. Tho plaintiff seemed to have spent his time between the Armchair oil the Creek, Blenheim, and Wellington, and now sought from the defendant a slight douceur in tho shape of. £136 no shillings and no penes for his arduous labours." His Worship was not quite sure but that .plaintiff's claim, if any, should be made in tho Warden's Court, but tho Court .was prepared to give tho defendant tho benefit of the'doubt-and. consider his case. Ite appeared to have been instrumental-in getting tho defendant to spend some of hej monoy on tho "Armchair" in preferenco to continue, paying it out on the former venture. He telephoned tho solicitor in Blenheim, and* saw him in company with tho defendant, attended the Court at Blenheim'; pegged out the claim, and sat in tho " Armchair " when ho was not in Blenheim or in Wellington. For doing tliis lie' claimed to have spent 65 days, for which he .claimed tho pittance of 20s. a day, in all a mere £65. This, by the way, did not includo tho arduous toil of pegging out the claim, a few hours work for which ho was modest' onough to ask a moftgro £5. His excursions from Blenheim to tho -Armohaip, and the rest cure for 12 days in Blenheim ho valued at £16. Astonished at his- own modestv. in these demands, he proceeded into round figures for ' introducing and securing.' which ho estimated at £50, thus making tho total of his clflim the aforesaid £136. His Worship considered it would bo tortious to oritur into tho plaintiff's' side .of, the story, \mt as an indication ho mentioned that plaintiff daniod haying received the' slim of £23, although his receipt was produced and acknowledged- by him" to be whnllv in'his handwriting. The Bleiiheim solicitor said that, he understood from tho defendant that plaintiff was her agent in tho matter, and on that ground, and that only, the Court was nrepared to allow him something for tho little which h® did: His Worship considered plaintiff would be amplv paid if the Court 1 ~. . 10 alno "ut at £10. Considering tho. 'ridiculous and extravagant nature of the claim no -costs'.would bo. allowed. would be for plaintiff for ¥10 without costs); POSSESSION. OF A VAN'AND HIRE; ' '■ judgment was 'also" £iven" by'Dr' ,'VK m cas ° L '°nol Casclberg (Mr! Meredith) v. Clias. S. Bailey (Mr. Hind-> marsh).r -■ Plaintiff allogod that by an agreement of hiro contract' dated Juno- 4, 1807' defendant agreed to hire a four-wheeled van! flood, and harness. Defendant, it was stadeposit of £1 on delivery cno v i an - aut l a Tnon thly .hire instalment , =" during tho continuance of • tho contract. _ - Plaintiff argued that by tho agreement it was agreed that, ho might,, witliout; prejudice to his . rights under tho agreement, toi minate such hiring and retake possession of the van if defendant failed duly to perform the agreement, It was also stated that defendant ];ad not paid any deposit or any of tho monthly instalments, and had thereloro not duly performed his agreement, and that there Was now duo and owing by defendant £26. Plaintiff said he terminated the agreement, and demanded delivery qf tho van, but defendant refused to deliver it, His Worship ,said tho liiro contract seome'd to him to be a remarkably fairone The payment of £2 a month seemed a very reasonable sum whereby to becomo owner of a van in 22 months. Defendant' paid nothing on account of the hire, for which 13 instalments were duo at the commence-ment-of tho action. , Tho rent of tho van was moderato, and must be paid, and tho van must bo returned. In default of return of possession defendant must pay its value £40.-. Judgment would bo for plaintiff for' thei l'oturn of the-van, or in default of return £45, - and in addition tho sum of £f6 for rent.. Costs £6 16s. .wero allowed...