MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 329, 16 October 1908, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

; .; PpIiICE'CASES. j Riddell, S.M.) Four men who;had,ov:ers.topped the bounds ,of sobriety were the only persons who figured, on : tho charge-sheet yesterday morning. Each offendecuiras' convicted and fined ,55., in default 21 hours' imprisonment. ' | :■ CIY'Ii' : iiOSINESS., ! (BoiEoro-iDrcAv- jtArthur,- S.M'.) ~ t', ; " r UNDEFENDED CASES. . '',' c Judgmeht'NvSs'"entere3'for plaintiff -by' de'fiiult of defendant in tho following civil •'cjisbs ! ' Ltd.,' v; Chas. >->Yiinamsj-'^dO.6d.,' i^Josts"'-i 382 14s.Gear 'Meat/- Preserving'''aiicl Freezing Co. of N-Z., Ltd., v. Frederick -.Gcorgo Culling £11 17s. f 3dJ, costs £1 10s: '6d;Barber and Co. v. 'Maurico fF;*:Johnstone, £3 15s. Id., costs MOs. ;-Comrnorcial Agency, Ltd., assignee, and fi'D.! WTlSfills aildX'o., assignor, v. Cecil B.' •'db lL.at.oui!>' £fll Is:-;..5d., costs £4 10s. 6d. j, ' : A ; lcoclig apd fly. £9 1 '85.,' .costs' p «l and Jone's,,Ltd., v. BarKamlShi£\\y£s 6s.,\cokts' 12s.';"W.' Lit-' tlejohn and Son. v. Jolni 11. Balnoavis, £1 10s. 6d., costs 175.; Scott Motor andi Cj'clo Co j, Ltd 1 ., v. Chas. W. Boyd, £1 lis. 5d.,' cos'ts 55.; Commercial Agency, Ltd:, assigned, and C 0.,. ,Lt"d., assignor, v. James Lang, £178 14s. 2d., costs a67(195. : Smallbone. Graco and, Co., Ltd., v.. Wm. 12»:- 7d./jCo"sts £2 14s/ ■~r J JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

L ' ;j 'lh tho judgment summons Win. 'YouDg-and James Elliott'v. •Wm/'J'ami&son, 'atdob't'-of-£4-19s; r debtor was ordered to pay ;,bn !oP-before .December.-.!, in .default.,.seven .idays'i! - , ~ : ?iiln;|he ease, E. and Co., Ltd., v. :Nbfnfan^amp^pll, ;: (\j,t|ebt' of. £9, 165., 10d„. debtor wa's'braored' to pay o'n-'or befori'October; 29, in. defaulf sercji days' imprisorimonl?.'

... /• No. orders were made m the case Green' and Davis vT' 1 Joseph Wi Noera. a debt of £22 ! :11s. 4d;,' ffr^WtftffTsro B Arf/Talbe'rtv;- Wmv : Jones,-a-debt--of-£2-3s,— 1 | iii> .'CLIENT. Leonard Horace Estcourt, , .contractor, suoff r'C&tKb'riue'' Cain, '■ confec-'-'tioncr, and- -fittings'. sup;plied>?ft%d"''fr<}rtf ii doife l jn erecting a coun- • tor; or-fitall-at"tlie-Alex«ndra Hall. It was shown nthat.„JiQ l prjeg.. .flys. agreed upon for.. the' work! "X)efcn3wit' contended that the price charged was unreasonably high in view of tho -work dane,„and, paid the 1 sum. of }£5. ,intp Cqurt. tlie •evideiso > and ' the -jpitf (Worship gave judg-'-mciit for .arbount paid'.into. -Cburt. o Defendant "warallowed £1 19s. costs, aijr} "Dft.nn -a|ipT?arf(l-4or plaintiff and Mr. ; £.ifkcaldic for defendant. *"■ ' HEPAIIIS TO A GIG... I a ~ ! (Beforo Mr'. W..-G. -Riddell, S.M.) I J in ; ' ' Rouse, Black, and, .Sons (Mr. Casey) sued AHlortSl. Samuels /Mr. Young) for £7 95., for'repairs to a case, or at least one phpso of it, n£,d..i!tl roa dy been before the Court, when the plaintiffs sued one William Aubrey for the amount. Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., heard the case, and gave judgment f&r AuWSy, "lloldfhg that the gig belonged *to Samuels at the time the repairs wore effected. Samuels said that he had held a#bill for £70 odd from Aubrey, and that tl|e lr.ttor had not been able to meet it.' He' thqn took .over. Aubrey's gig and poijy, fcut this was^'after it had been repaired iby the plaintiffs?-" ' : ' •' ' His Worship the defendant was not; liaplo for the amoji)\t, not haying been rill {possession of the'"' gig when it was repaired. jj Ho thercfomjfeh'vG judgment for the defendant, with costal Is. ; RESERVED JUDGMENTS. '■ ' j ' I ' ''.■ Dr. SI "Arthur delivered his reserved decision intthc case Karori Borough Council (Mr. Brandoft) v. Manihera l'uketapu (Mr. Ayson), a> claim for £25 os. 6d., in respect of ..rates o"n a blopk, of laridj Tinakori .South-,-containing 23 acres .23 perches. Counsel for the dcfcnce. admitted; that- defondrint was on the rate book as owner, and that demand had been made on liini for the rates. Counsel''for',', plaintiff admitlefl.'that demands had .not been made on other owners, and that -thoir names were not on tlio rate book. For Tinakori. §pt.h, .block.,thorp were, originally fouV;;;i>tfpcrs,' titlo to vest in them as on , .February--7 r ~1873. —On-August 20, • ISB9, a partition was ordered by the Native Land Cobrt .Sdi'WdiKg l "tlfd ' block 'iiit'o four divi- -. ;,sions. It gave to eaclr a little more than . seven acres. Subdivision 1-was awarded to irMakero Rcihana, and a succession order ol' :-thc fjwjfc .made...in 1903 .Appointed dGl'eiidalit'-nno of three successors ;-'Ho •jlakero lteiliana. Defendant had nofur- • the'r interest as .far as, was known. The par- ! jtitiou- , 'Ot'deJ'^Ji'fid ; fiWt'Mi.tfen sighed, {lie land '. tliad ' tlio tracing, pro- , -!ducc(ffo !>ne 'Court, oji"- tho partition waD, ■ '-'not with the Survey Department. After dealing with tho arguments raised , counsekhi,?^ ■'Worship, defendant ''was rightly rated itmUuv the Act of 189-1. If , fte Iliad considered ho. Ji'as improperly on the " 'frill or improperly'^rftWd 1 thereon,'he should ■ Jia\!o authority uiiddr i Section 41 of tho A'c'f?' : and had the error, I if In the opinion-

of tho Court, defendant owned an interest in the whole block, and as such owner was liablo to be rated thereon. Counsel asked for judgment for £12 19s. <id.'only, being tlio rate's due for. 1907-1908;. taking no account 'of the arrears. Jndgment would be for plaintiff for £12'195. <kL, and costs £2 7s. Defendant was allowed costs of an adjournment, £l'ls. • " ' , ..A DEAL IN HORSEFLESH. Mr. W. CI. Riddell, S.M., delivered his^ reserved judgment in tho case of Martin Kennedy (Mr. Fair) v. E. 11. Oliver (Mr. Kirkcaldie). Plaintiff claimed £13 damaged, or recision of contract and return of tho price of a horse purchased from the defendant. Ho sjiid tiiat tho defendant warranted tho horse to bo staunch, sound, and quiet, and suitable to l>o ; driven by a lady. According to -the evidence, plaintiff first saw the horse at defendant's house, when, lie was told by. Mrs. Oliver that, it was quito staunch and had been driven about tile hills. On the same afternoon he saw defendant,i a draper's' assistant, with a knowledge, of horses. ~ Plaintiff told defendant that ho had seen the horse, and that Mrs. Oliver said it Was staunch and quiet, and could ho driven by a lady. The interview was short and hurried, but, in his Worship's opinion, dofendant then led plaintiff-to believe that his wife's statements a 5 to tho horse's qualifications wero substantially, correct.,.. At any rate, the parties arranged a trial, and next day defendant "drove the horse to plaintiff' 4 house, put it into plaintiff's gig, and drove it round the Kelburne roads. The animal showed no signs of jibbing during tho trial. The defendant offered plaintiff any trial he wished; and asked him to prolong tho present one, but plaintiff, who had had a long experience of horses, said he was satisfied, paid defendant the price (£lO 10s.) agreed upon, and took possession of the Tlio next day plaintiff tried it again in his gig, and it jibbed several times. There was no cvidbnee to show- that the horso was unsound or .not quiet, but his Worship thought there was cvidcnco to show that it was not so staunch as'plaintiff expected, and would not be suitablo for a lady to drive. Ho also thought that dofendant must have known the horso was 1 accustomed to jib when starting, but, in offering any trial to plaintiff, ho iiivited tho latter to test it ' for 'himself, ■ as well as tho statements as r 'to its qualities, ;Tho plaintiff knew hp was buying a horso for his wife; Ho was an'-:,- experienced man amongst horses, and have known that a more thorough test.was.required in selecting' a horso to bo driven by-.vlady, than in an ordinary ease. Th'o , defehdailt. was_ a stranger..to-him,- and tilefact, that/both arranged'for a trial, and carried;.it ; putj.'showed that' defendant did/riot. ,;al,together,:. /intend plaintiff-to rely Ai'p'on his-s'tatofhents,; and, conversely, the fact of''plaintiff's'takjng- a' trial indicated that'lie'ivas nofpropared to .accept- ;the defendant'sstatements, but •would, rely on his'owii'judgMont/'/'l' 'r t After quoting several aiithbrities.von, tho liability, of buyers, liisi.Wor'ship'.'said that >.if, in the present cajso', plaintiff had; accepted tho horso without trial, lie would have been entitled to recover,, but-.; having'decided to test it, and to rely ; upon Jiis-own judgment, his Worship was inclined .to think tho rule caveat emptor applied. The tost applied by plaintiff .was not one ;t-hat,.-in-his opinion, 'V reasonable person with : a knowledge, of horsps would have considered sufficient upon which,to purchase a horso .suitable for a lady to drive. Judgment was entered for the defendant, with costs.