CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 291, 2 September 1908, Page 4

CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiff by default of defendant was onterod in tho following civil cases: —J. C, Morris v. Mrs. L. C. Gordon, £1 12s._ 6d., costs 55.; Thomas A. .Wells v. John George Buy, £3 2s. 6d., costs'l2s.; The Palmer Engineering Co., Ltd;- v. John \V.' . Stewart, £2-,45. 9d.,. costs 10s. ;■ Dental;lmporting Cp., - Ltd. ~r. Hamilton Alexander Wilson, £8 Bs. 9d., costs £1 3a. 6d.; Wellington Gas Co., Ltd. t. Chas. Johnson, £43 ' -13s.j costs'£2 145.; Edward Lo Hay v. Neil Miller ,£1 Bs., costs 55.; F. C. Hjorring and Co. v., Jolin Wm. M'Coy, £] lis: Gd:, costs £1 3s. '6d.; T. and ,Wi- Young r! The-:; ■ resa Briggs, .£54 3s. 6d., costs £3,175.;; Rob: ert Martin, Ltd. v.' Chas. Linley, £1 sjs. j. . costs 6s;; . Stewart Timber, Glass ~,and. Hardware Co., Ltd. v. Elizaboth.ißea,'• £35 175.2d., costs:'"£2 14s; S Warnock:.aiid;Adkin. v.'.< John Tofts, £3 os. id-veosts 'lOs.';. Same 1 v! , Frank Lambert, £3 ' i7s.-iodi, costs 10s.; John'Dtithio and Co., Ltd. r. Frede- ■ rick Butfiher, 3d.,' costs 10s.'; No orders were made in tho following judg-'. ment summons cases:—Macky,. Logau, Caldwell and,Cp. v. Thos. Callingham,, a debt of: £17 65,, 10d., .and. John . Miller v. Thos.i O'Donnell, a debt of £3 10s;

RESERVED JUDGMENTS. ' : V■; STEAMSHIP-COMPANY AND PASSENGER.. ... . . I .FOR A .LOST RUG. : 'An interesting reserved "judgment was given by Dri A. M'Arthur, S.M., in the case Paul-Kennedy (Mr. .Findlay) v. the Union; Company (Mr. Levi). Plaintiff : claimed the sum of £5 damages by reason of the loss of'a travelling-rug, whilst he was ,i a passenger by the steamer Maitai, through.the.alleged negligence /of.- tho defendant 'company's, servants. The" facts, about' which there was virtually no dispute, were that plaintiff was returning to,' Wellington from .Sydney by the Maitni, and one .evening left his rug in the smokingroom. Being un-' able, to find it, in the morning, '.ho' applibd' to the'second steward for it, and it was re-' turned to him. It had'been found in the smokingroom "the previous evening- :by • the watch,, and had been placed in the stoward's care.' -The' steward told plaintiff , that the smoke'room was. jiot a , safe place in which! to leave a rug,' and pointed out a spot at the entrance .to tho .social hall, telling plain-: tiff to leave it there, and it would be safe. On going to dinner that-evening plaintiffleft /lis - rug l as directed, but' on returning: for the rug lster in tho evening could not find it. .Counsel for the defence'urged that if the defendants were -held -liable it would requires' great staff of stewards to' cope with the work of looking after tho luggage,, of passengers while on a. voyage. - This -ar-' gument, his Worship 'said, was fully answered in the case of the. Great Wcstorn Railway Company v. Bunch. After quoting numqrous authorities referred to by sel his Worship ,said that, in tho. present case the plaintiff placed hip rug -whore ho had been directed to by the defendants' servant. That being so, it appeared to - his -Worshipthat there was no default or negligence on plaintiff's part, but tho default;or,ncgligenec 'was on the-mrt' of ; :th'o defendants; • "Judgment must bo for plaintiff for the sum of £2 10s.,;,and:Costs. -•

A SHIPMENT "OF CHAFF.t Dr. MfArthur-'al^';'.ddiTered---judginciii}in the case-of Rowe: and. Sons, Ltd. ,(Mr. D.- 6! Jackson), v. the Union Steam Ship Co., Ltd; (Mr. Levi), a .claim.for. £75. ' v ', ' Tho statement' of claim .sot out that on March 24, 1908, the plaintiff- company delivered to the pursor of the defendant com? pany's steanier: Pateenaj' at.-'Picton/'a'"con-signment of V l'2s'- sacks' 'of"cfiiifF,. br'andeS "A," to bo delivored to the plaintiff' company at Wellington.; The''defendants. ;delivered only. 115 sacks. ■ ' A ;sum' of. £2 'lss. was. claimed for the ten missing sacks. Tho plaintiffs further asserted that on. April 18, 1908, a consignment of 250 . 'sacks of chaff (branded , "A") was delivered to tho fmrser of the .Penguin at Picton; for deivery. at Wellington.; This consignment-had not yet been , delivored, and the ,-plaintiffs therefore claimed £72:55. as its:,value.'',:' Tho dispute; his ;Worship- said;-' iiad ;arjsen in -consequence- of.'-the marks or-briinds on the 'ehaff. It 'was;claimcd.for/ the' plaintiffs that in both shiprnfents/the .mark; or brand on the sacks was -,''A/' and - they, claimed delivery of ten sacks marked .''A;" arid ';250 sacks similarly marked; ;The defendants-were prepared to - deliver td'.'tho plaintiffs'.the number of sacks alleged;:to havo been short delivered, but those which they offered did not bear tho. mark ."A."-. The defendants contended that the sacks of chaff.Jhey offered wero thoso' that-had : been' sbi'pp'dd,'' notwfththoy bore a mark other that} "A," and that-they ..wero offering tho plaintiff the ; chaff shipped, although it bore a' brand different from that appearing, on, the boat notes. ' . After ;* lengthy review of tho' evidonce, and of tho law bearing on' the matter, his Worship -.said that. he was- of tho* opinion that theigoods had -been- put' on boardr'and had been .discharged, but that by error tho boat notes contained a' wrong 'mark'.' ** For this reason he would "for tho defendant company, with costs.