CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 452, 10 March 1909, Page 4

CIVIL BUSINESS.

. (Before Dn A. M'Arthur, S.M.) POSSESSION OF A HORSE. Reserved judgment was given by Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., in the case Wm. Henry Hook-(Mr. P. W. Jackson) v. Henry Arthur Gold (Air. Nielsen), a claim for the possession of a horse or its value, £20, m case possession could not be had, and £10 damages for tho alleged wrongful detention of tlTe animal. Commenting on the evidence, his Worship said that.thoro were several points in the case which required explanation, and the Court was far from satisfied Cwith; the.explariatibns.igi.ven.. Tllo qnly document purporting,"to'. transfer : tho ownership of the horse was' a receipt .dated December 12, 1905. This receipt came clearly within the definition ,of an' instrument under the provisions of Section 2 of the Chattels Transfer -Act, '1908, and under Section 16 of tho samo Act, unless registered in the manner provided in the Act, shall, upon the expira-..' tion "of tlie time for registration, be deemed , void as against the assignee or trustee un--: der any assignment for the benefit of creditors.' The receipt was never registered. .Further, at the time of the sale to Wm. Henry Hook, the horse was the property of .tho firm of. Lewis Hook, and Co., of which.! ■pne'.ohlson was a .partner. Lewis Hook was -; not tiife -true owner of the horse. Section 21 of the Act. provided that an instrument shall, be void in respect of any chattels of which 'the grantor.was not the true owner at the time of the execution of. £he instrument. His. Worship thought that, under both Section 1G and Section 21 of the Chattels Transfer ■ Act,.-' 1903, the instrument was void against: /defendant;'; and therefore plaintiff could not succeed. Judgment would be for defendant with costs. .£2 2s. - • V . UNDEFENDED CASES. • Judgment was entered for plaintiff by default of defendant in ■ tho following civil cziscs Jackson and Co. v. E. Atkinson, £19 Bs. 3d., costs £1 10s. 6d.; samo v. Joseph Andrews, £2 2s. 6d., costs 10s.; George Malsbn'v. W; J. Hunt, £4 10s., costs 10s. I'M;..'- ; DEFENDED CASES. , (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) A BICYCLE AND A DOCTOR'S MOTOR : , ■ CAR. I"A collision alleged to have taken place in Hopper Street on November 7 last between [ a motor car, belonging to Dr. Mackin, and a bicycle, ridden by Alfred Bolland, inspector of scafToldiug, formed the basis of an action for damages. Dr. Mackin was proceeded against by tho State for £5, cost of damage to the bicycle, alleged to have heen .duo .to the negligence of defendant's driver. Richard Alfred Bolland, tho rider of tho machine, also claimed £5 general damages as the result of the collision. £5 as tho value of wearing apparel destroyed, and £1 Is. cost of medical expenses. Mr. D. M. Fimllay appeared for plaintiffs atd Mr. Blair for the defendant. , Tho allegation of plaintiffs was that Lol■land was-'riding "on" the right side of tho street, close to the footpath, with Lis ijiachine under proper control. Tho motor car crossed rapidly from one sido of the street, as if to go into another street, Struck Bolland and completely destroyed tho bicycle. ■The ttst to apply to such cases in considering liability, Mr. Findlay contended, was, , would tho accident have happened if tho Vehicle had not been a motor car? Would an ordinarily careful rider of another bicyclo, a drivor of a" dray or a cart, have bsen responsible for such an accident? If this test wore applied it was impossible to escapo the view that liability for tho accident ley wiih ; the motor car. The case for the defence was that tho accident was the result of plaintiff's own negligence. It was alleged that plaintiff had come down the hill at a very rapid rate, that ho had not proper control over his machine, •tb/it the motor car stopped in order to permit .Bolland to pass, and that instead of tho car running into him he had run into a telegraph polo and tho kerbstone -at tho corner of Arlington Street. At tho rato Bolland was travelling, had he struck tho car dircct ' he must have' been killed instantly. ' Jndgment was reserved. CABMEN IN LITIGATION. (Before Dr/ A. M'Arthur, S.M.) Gcorgo Andrews, junr., cabman (Mr. Dix), sued W. A. Webb, cabman (Mr.. Toogood), for the recovery of a cab and fittings valued at £30, a sot of harness valued at £10, damages to tho cab £5, and loss of employment, and use of the cab from February 12 to date of judgment, £9 15s. Tho statement of claim sot out' that the- goods were tho proporty of plaintiff, and were wrongfully takon by the defendant on or about February 12. In caso possession of the goods and chattels could "not bo given to plaintiff, ho claimed £40 for tho cab and harness, and £14 10s. damages. ' Defcnfent stated that ho purchased the cab' from George Andrews, sour. After portion of defendant's case had been heard, the acfouinfld to .Thursdfl^