MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 790, 13 April 1910, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CIVIL BUSINESS. ALLEGED PTOMAINE POISONING. An allegation of ptomaine poisoning was discussed in the Magistrate's Court before Mr. W. G. Biddell, S.M., yesterday morning. Kate Bradley, wife of John Bradley, settler! and '■■ Daniel Bradley, their son, sued the Thorndon Meat and Poultry Supply Co. for medical expenses, M 45., and damages, £20. The plaintiffs (for whom Mr. Blair appeared) sought to prove that they had suffered ptomaine poisoning as the result of partaking of steak supplied by the defendant company. Mr. Wilted appeared for the defence.

A piece of steak (according to tho evidpuce of John Bradley and his wito) was bought from the defendant company on January 11, and fried lor their evening meal, at which Mrs. Bradley and Daniel Bradley partook of it. They were both taken ill about half an hour afterwards, the other members of the family did not eat any of the steak, and were not taken ill. ' Bradley sent back the remainder of the steak to ,the defendants. Dr. Arnold Izard said he attended tho plaintiffs oh January 13, and in his opinion they were both suffering from ptomaine poisoning, which lasted lour or five days. To Mr. Wilford: He could not trace the ptomaine poisoning to any ' particular article of food. Ptomaine poisoning might be caused by eating tainted jam that had been in a tin or in a glass jar with a tin cover, or'by eating tainted milk, butter, or other articles. He never heard of'tea in tins causing it. Tinned fish w-as the commonest cause. Plaintiffs attributed their illness to eating steak, and what he saw was consistent with that opinion. .

To his Worship: The symptoms of ptomaine poisoning usually showed themselves within an' hour. The longest interval he had known was four 'or five hours..

, Mr. Wilford applied for a non-suit, on the ground that plaintiffs had not proved that the steak' was the cause of the poisoning. The magistrate said ho would hear the evidence for.the defence. John Robert. Cousins, manager for the ihorndon Meat Company, said he received his meat daily from the Meat lixport Company at /Ngahauranga. Ho remembered cutting off 21b. of steak from a 301b. piece for Bradley's order. The meat had come that morning from Ngahauranga. Tho ,fest of the 301b. pieco was sold, and the portion that came back ' rom Bradley was also sold. He had heard no other coranlaints, and would swear that the.meat was. perfectly good. 10 Mr. Blair: If.one portion of the meat had been bruised or tainted' he would have seen it. - Alexander Moore, manager of the whole-sale-department of the Meat Export Company, said.all tho meat"sent out was inspected and marked by a Government inspector. The magistrate said there was a strong presumption that the steak was the cause ot the ptomaine poisoning, but that did not amount to proof. Ho remarked on the fact that the meat was again sold, and presumably consumed, without causinginjury. ' Plaintiffs would;bo nonsuited, and would have to pay costs £2 lis. ■ -..-■,.■ CLAIM .FOR WAGES. _ T Gini Angclini, an Italian labourer (Mr. Aoavo), claimed £5 12s. balance of wages from Carlo Antico, settler, of •Caprera Street, Wellington ■ (Mr. Newton). Defendant, who is plaintiff's uncle and the owner- of property at Newtown, had paid plaintiff's furo from Italy to Welf! n ,Ef°. n - He also said ho had paid plaintiff his wages at Is. an hour from timo to time, and plaintiff had handed , tho money to his uunt (defendant's wife, since deceased) to take care of. 'They had'subsequently had a settlement. .■••■;. • , ft ?r h ? arin S evidence, the magistrate said tho defendant had apparently mixed two accounts, a wages account and a trust account, ■ as he held ■certain moneys for plaintiff. Tho evidence was somewhat vague, but tho-"defendant*had'faileiPSto show that he had paid plaintiff all that was due to him.

Judgment was given for plaintiff for tho amount claimed and'22s. 6d. costs.

.; CAEEIEE AND PICTUEES. David Martin, carrier, Johnsonviile, claimed .£1 from Florence Pilcher, of the Railway Hotel, Johnsonviile, balance duo for removal of. furniture. Defendant counterclaimed for breakage of certain pictures, £5 15s. Mr. Machell appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. : A; 'Pair lor defendant. ' Alter considering the evidence the magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiff Martin tor the amount claimed (,£1), and costs 65., and for Mrs. Pilcher on the counter-claim to the amount of £1, and costs '.£1 173. .' '•

JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT. Judgment for plaintiffs by default was given in tho following cases:—David L. Clay V. Arnold Bruckman, £i 75., costs 10s.; Jas. Knight v. G. Hatton, M 14s, Gd., costs, 10s.; . P. Mackin v. Harry Adams, £7, costs 235; 6d.j Hunt and Co; v. Thomas H. Aitken, 2s. Gd., costs ,£2 Us.; Wellington City Council v. John Moffat,: ,£3O 13s. Gd., costs 245.;' same v: Frederick Vaughan, .£22 16s. 9d., costs 235.; Wm.-Taylor v. Joseph James Moore, £1 125.-9d.,vcosts os.; Wellington Publishing Co., Ltd.,v. William Park, £15 lis. Id., costs 155.; C.'H. Mason v. James Ogilvie, £1 45., costs 18s.; R. B. Davies and Co. v. William Hill, £3, costs 10s.; T. Garland and Co. v. Angerstein and Jeffrey, £1 10s., costs 255. Cd.;L. Caselberg and Co., Ltd. v. Arthur E. Maltby, £i 10s., costs 103.; H. Oscar Hewett and Co., Ltd. v..Francis Whaler, ,£1 55.; costs 55.; same v. Charles Carson, ,£2 55., costs 10s.; Charles H. Jonos v. .George Pinnock, £a 14s. 3d., costs 235. 6d.; Loasby and Isaao v. Harry Eoiintree, £3 Is. 5d., costs 145.; W. Belcher v. Frederick' Charles Winter, .£2l 25.-3d., costs .£2 Us.; G. H. Thornton v. Charles Wilson, M L 7s. 2d., costs 235. 6d.; A. S. Paterson and' Co. v. Guy Marriott, ,£lB3 18s. 7d„ costs £& 4s. 6d. ; .

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. In the cases United Farmers' Co-opera-civo Association, Ltd. v. George Mitchell (amount owing ,£l4 2s. Id.), same v. David Martin (amount owing .£lO 18s.), and South British ■ Insurance Co., ltd. v. John Craig (amount owing .£3B 7s. 9d.), defendants (none of whom appeared) wero ordered to pay the amounts owing on or before April 30, in default .14, 12, und 28 days' imprisonment respectively. Honry Oliver (who did not.appear) was ordered to pay G. E. Rogers the sum of £1 10s. on or before April 20, in default three days' imprisonment. No order was made in the' case William. J. Styles v. Walter Taylor (amount ' owing .£lB 7s. 9d.). x . , ■