CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 321, 7 October 1908, Page 11

CIVIL BUSINESS.

. (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) .. UNDEFENDED OASES. " Judgment for plaintiff By default of de- ; fondant was entered in the following cases; — AtkoKWm. Waters v. John M'lndoe, ,12s. ' 9d. j costs 145.; Thos. Thomson -v. Ruby Ratcliff] '£2 17b. 6d., costs 195.; Mary . Alcorn and Margaret Andrews Alcorn, in partner- ;. ship.,,under tho style of "Liberty's," v. George : M'Gregor and Martha M'Gregor, £23. 6sr fid-.; costs £3 125.; Beggs Bros. v. Win. M'Leoa, £18 4s. 7d., costs £1 13s. 6d.; Wl'arid G.Turnbull and Co. v. James Joseph Cronin,. £18 Os. lid., costs £2 Os. 6d.; E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd., v. H. F. "Williams, . 7 s'.,' costs only; James Arthur Hill v. Christopher G. A. Gladstone, £8 Is. 7d., costs £1 3s. 6d.; D. Benjamin and Co. 'v. John Bickerton; £44 16s. lid., costs £1 35.; Elias John Forbes V. Chas. N. J'aplin, 10s., costs only ; Dresden Piano Co. v. Wm. Moflatt, £11 lis.,'; costs £1 10s. 6d.Thompson Bros., Ltd., v.'-Henry Head, £2 7s. 10s., costs 10s.; Nicol, Stringer, and Roberts, Ltd. (in liquidation) v. David Barrie, £3 OS. 6d., costs 10s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. In the judgment summons case, Annie Nielboii' v.'Herbert M'Coy, a debt.of £9 25., debtor was ordered to pay on or before Oc-. tober 20, in default seven days' imprisonment. In the case, Clout Bros. v. David Barrie, a debt of £4 6s. 10d., debtor was ordered to pay! on'or before October 20, in default three days', imprisonment. , No orders were made in tho case Thomas M'Grath v. Wm. Aubrey, a debt of £5 10s.; and .Wellington Loan Co., Ltd., v. P. Connolly, a debt of £18 2s. Bd. (Before Dr. A..M'Arthur, S.M.) ' : MOTOR CARS IN COLLISION. Ernest .- C. Levvey, solicitor (Mr. Blair) sued -Henry. Avery, bootmaker (Mr. -Herdman), for £44 1 'Is. ■ 3d; damages alleged to haye.been sustained to plaintiff's motor car through, the alleged negligence of defendant in driving his motor caivon tho Paekakariki Hill Road pn December 26, and general damages. Defendant counter-claimed for, £21 13s".'damages to his car through the alleged neglect, of plaintiff, and general damages. Evidence showed that plaintiff was driving ; his. car. up the Paekakariki hill, and was about, to. turn a corner when the other car came, down the hill. Plaintiff alleged that he-was. on his correct side, and that defendant was oh tho wrong side. Plaintiff stated that he saw that an accident was inevitable, and pulled across the other side of the road to; avoid a serious accident. Defendant's car struck plaintiff on the left back wheel. :■ y :For t the defence it was alleged that tho collision, was the result of negligence on the' part of plaintiff. If plaintiff had kept to his right side'of tho road defendant urged that he could s have passed tho upcoming car without any difficulty. Ho was coming down the hill' in tho. middle ,of the road at a moderate pace, and was exorcising all possible care. After shearing, evidence at length, his Worship reserved judgment until "October 13. ; i\. OTHER CASES. , ;*■ (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) Martin Kennedy (Mr. Fair) sued E. H. Oliver'(Mr. Kirkcaldio) for £13. Plaintiff .stated that ho wished to purchase a .horse, which .would be quiet, staunch, and sound, and fit-to be driven by a lady. Tho defend-ant-sold-him. a horse which lie. guaranteed wouldiuit the plaintiff's needs. The horse had since .been found to be anything but staunch and quiet. His Worship reserved his decision. • Margaret, Roto (Mr. Bolton) sued Caroline Elizabeth .Angers tein (Mr. Weston) for £11 55.,- commission alleged to be due on the Bale of tho furniture and goodwill of a boai;ding-houso. The purchasers had been introduced to-the defendant by the plaintiff. His'"-Worship held that the plaintiff was entitled to some commission, but not to tho amount .claimed. Judgment would be for £5, with costs 17s. -■ RESERVED JUDGMENT. Reserved judgment was given by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., ! in tho caso of the Drapery and General Importing Company of New Zealand; Ltd. (Mr. Levvey) v. Samuel Wallace May-Sommerville and his wife, Carolino S.-May-Soinmerville. The claim was for £117 155., of. which £105 3s. was alleged to bo duo on .a hire-purchase agreement, and £12 12s. for got/ds sold and delivered. His "Worship said, the caso was one of mero facts, ind a, most .complicated one. There was not the slightest reason to doubt tho bona fides of the-parties, who seemed to havo spoken what they honestly believed to he true, but noiio the less th'e testimony was' in tho highest degreo conflicting. This wa3 duo to two facts—first, the nature Of tho transactions . themselves, and, second, tho fact that, .owing to a fire on their premises, tho plaintiffs-wore unable to prodiico the documents which would enable the Court to como to .a decision with somo degree of certainty. Under- such difficulties, his Worship couki only take that which appeared to him to bo the; more probable view-of the case. After;a lengthy review of the evidence, his Worship said that, so far as he could make out! the defendants certainly owed the plaintiffs an'amount of £48 25., and he accordingly gave judement for the plaintiffs for this amount, with costs £8 9s.