MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 773, 23 March 1910, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

A BILL OF LADINO. (Before Mr. W. R. Haselden, S.M.) Eeserved judgment was given in the case of Sanders Bros., contractors, v. the. Shaw, Savill, and Albion Steam Ship Company, Ltd., a claim for £53 13s. 9d., damages claimed in respect to two packages of granite alleged to have been destroyed in. transit. It was stated in evidence and claim that the company took delivery of the granite in Glasgow for transhipment to New Zealand. It was alleged that while the > granite, which was part _of a consignment ■ ordered for the Union Bank contract, .was. being discharged, it was dropped from the sling. In delivering judgment, Mr. Haselden, S.M., said that he was compelled on the authorities to hold that the dam- ; ages alleged came within the exceptions to liability provided for in the bill of lading. The whole, action was based on the alleged negligence of the servants of the defendant, and'harsh as it might appear, the law was c}early laid down that such negligence may, by the terms of the bill of lading, exempt the defendants from liability, Cases were cited in support of the ruling, and the plaintiffs were, nonsuited. As to the terms offered regarding storage his Worship said that the ease may he mentioned again fourteen days hence. ■ Costs were fixed at £4 9s.

Mr. Blair appeared for plaintiffs and ■Mr. Myers for' the defendant company.

TIMBER CASE. Reserved judgment was given in the case of the Hutt Valley Timber Company, Ltd., v. Richard Keene, a claim for £91 2s. lid., alleged to be owing for timber. '■• In giving judgment his Worship said he had endeavoured to find a judgment for the plaintiffs for the value of the timber delivered after the. date of,'the order,'but ho found himself : unable to -dp so. consistently with what appeared -to be the legal position.. , The defendants instructed the'plaintiffs to deliver.timber on the section specified; and instead of complying', with' v .this--clear.' instruction, they delivered .the/timber at their own mill, to the carter of a person, -.who they knew- had building: contracts';:not only ou_the speciiied_ section, but in anotfter" place!" "*Ho.TEoughftliat~uiideT' these- -. circumstances they must prove .satisfactorily. that the .timber, was de-. livered on the special section;.•■'■ They had: not done this. ■'■ The evidence, ■both of Hurrell and Anderson the cartor,' was unsatisfying on this .point and .was.: weakened by the .circumstantial evidence offered: by ihe ; defendant. "With Teluctance he non-suited ■ the plaintiff on the items exclusive of those on which payment 'had .been made since the aotion was brought.. The defendant was allowed £3 3s. costs. ■_ .: Mr.; Meredith ' appeared ifor claimants, and Mr. Beere for defendant.. . • HUSBAND AND WIFE. Judgment was .also given in the case of Martha Pirani v; Frederick. Pirani,' a claim for £91 10s'., balance of maintenance and support alleged to be due by defendant. The parties, who were husband and wife, had agreed, mutually to separate, and defendant agreed |.to, pay plaintiff and her children £2 '15s. weekly. According to plaintiff sho had only received £70 15s. since. December; 19, '1908. Tho defence sot up ; was to the effect that there was. no specific agreement, and that defendant had undertaken certain responsibilities, in regard 'to the education 'of thp children, which relieved him' of the payments in fu11.., ;'. The' .magistrate, in his judgment, thought that a valid agreement had been proved whereby the. defendant undertook to pay to the. plaintiff tlio sum sued for. ■He also thought. that the plaintiff had fulfilled her part of the contract and was entitled to recover, Judgment would be.for plaintiff with £7 lls. COStS.'' : '■•.■■ Mr. Gray appeared for claimant and Mr! ..Neave. .was counsel ..for; defendant.'

REHEARING ASKED, An application was made- by Mr. yis, counsel for "plaintiff, for a rehearing of the. case, Empire Loan and Discount Company, Ltd.j v. T. G. Maoarthy, "a claim—in ■ which plaintiff failed—.for possession of a piano."Mr. Dix siiti-. riritfed that evidence had. been discovered, since tlie hearing which could not have" been known prior thereto, and ..which must have caused - tie : Court to reverse '. its judgment. It had., been ...alleged for the defence that tlie piano had been tho property of E. S. Faulkner, jun. It had now .been discovered that in Messrs. Be* tluino, and, Co.'s books, thero was an entry which' showed.-, that tho piano had been sold to Falkner, sen., on tho fact : of whoso ownership plaintiff's case had, in tho main, depended. Tho application was refused by tho magistrate on the ground that tho evidence, .even had it been before him,, would not 'have disturbed his judgment. Costs £1 Is. were' allowed against, plaintiff. ■ . . FENCING COSTS. ' - . • Messrs. Kceno and Eeid claimed from Charles F. Beeves tho sum of £89 15s. 7d., being half cost of . thrca miles 13 chains of fenciug at 145.. 2d. a chain. Defendant admitted liability at tho rato of 10s. per chain, alleging an agreement to this effect, and disputed also tho distance. After hearing evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs, the caso was adjourned till Thursday, in order to enable defendant to be present. Mr. Bocro appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Blair for defendant. , ...

O'Donoghue, £7 10s., costs £1 3s. 6d.; AY. H. Suckling, liquidator of Loci, Upton, Ltd., v. John and Annie O'Brien, £3 55., costs £1 155.; E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd., v. George W. Lawrence, £64 19s. Cd., costs £1 10s.; S. W. Cops v. Wm. Whyte, £2 os. Id., costs 13s. • S. Kirkpatrick and Co., Ltd., v. Gilbert W. ; Donga], £1 16s. 4d., costs 10s.; Eliza Hicks Thomas v. George Edward Clout, £24 17s. Bd., costs £2 165.; N.Z. Acetylene Gas Lighting' Co., Ltd., y. William Bevan, jun., 14s. 3d., costs £1 45.; N.Z. Times Company, Ltd., v. E. E. Pay, £2 10s., costs 55.; Stewart Timber Co., Ltd., v. Thomas Foss,.£G 14s. 9d., costs Bs.; same v. . Herbert Hall, £1 15s. 3d., costs 55.: South Pacific Mortgsgo and Deposit Co., Ltd., v. Justin F. H. Macarthy, £10 Is. 6d., costs £1 ss. 6d.; Wellington City Council v. William Norton, £8 3s. 6d., costs--165.; Smith and Smith, Ltd., v. Mrs. Lena Bedingfield, Bs. 7d., costs 65.;. Robert H. Williams v. Alfred Bacon, £12, costs 155.; Joseph Lewis v. James Parko Kirkwood, 16s. 6d., costs 55.; Field, Luckie and Toogood v. Percy C. Shirley, £5 Bs., costs Bs.; Magnus Sanderson and Co., Ltd., v. Cannino , and Co., £36 45., costs £2 143.; Bernard Portman v. Alfred Philpot and Florence Boddy, £1 10s. 9d., costs Bs.; Lancaster Land Co., Ltd., v. Chelsea Spiers, £48 6s. 4d., costs'£3'los.; Thomas Inglis v. Pitcaithly and Co., 10s. 7d.; costs ss;; Charles H. Osmond v. Thomas William Arthur, £5, costs £1 Is. 6d.; South Pacific Mortgage and Deposit Co., Ltd., v. Charles Cashmore Green and Thomas "Green; £25 '3s. lOd.y costs £2 103. ''••■■ .. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. ".'-:' No orders were made in the following judgment summons ■' oases:—Novelties, Ltd., v. J. Bars Tit, a debt of £8 2sT Bd.; William Henry Bowden v. Albert Edward Bennett, a debt of £5 45.; H. Price and : Co., Ltd.y v. Wm. Haguo, a debt of £7 : 135. 3d. _ . ■ la the case of A. Lindsay, Ltd.", v. Edward Bevan, jiin., defendant was ordered to pay £4 175., on or before April 5, in default four days' imprisonment. James Halcrow was ordered to pay to William Hendry, on or before April. 5, the. .sum of £3 lie., in default three, days'imprisonment. . . v Alfred John. Bradley was ordered to. deliver possession of tenement to Cyri} Wm. Tanner, on or before April 10, and to satisfy a claim of £19.45. for rent., . ,-. . With regard to the'case of John Coogan v.. Lawrence Inkster, a claim for £3 45., being balance of amount due bn a uniform, judgment was given for plaintiff. Mr.. Meredith appeared for defendant. . . '/;,.' .. ." . ■-- ■ POLICE CASES. ■ ••'• '' ' ' -.-.■'■ ■■ : (Before 1 Mr. W. G.' Riddell, S.M.) Walter ■ Henry Lister,, charged witlj haying committed an unnatural offence, was' remanded till the following day.' JdhnWm. Petersen, a child , not under proper" control, was committed: to ■the. AYcreroa Training Farm. ,'..'■■'.' ■'.•;

Annie M'Grath, previously convicted of drunkenness, was fined 203., in default 7 days' imprisonment; Two first offenders were dealt with in the usual way, and' another who did not. appear had his bail estreated.