MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 981, 23 November 1910, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Br. A. M'Arthur, S.JI.) RUGBY UNION TO PAY DAMAGES. DISPUTE WITH PETONE COUNCIL. In giving judgment yesterday in a case in which the Petonc Borough Council sued the Wellington Rugby Football Union, for damages, the Magistrate reviewed the case as follows:— "In 1909 the parties entered into a certain contract whereby the Tetone Council granted to the Rugby Union the use of the Petonc liecreation Ground for the season 1909 for inter-club piatches. The council now claims from the Hugby Union a sum of ,£25 as general damages for breach of contract. The breach complained of was the_ removal of a match, Petone v. Athletic, set down to be played on August 7. on tho Petone Eecreation Ground, from that ground to the Athletic Park. The Kugby Union claim that they had the right to do so under their contract, as it was a semifinal match, whereas tho.Petone Council deny that such match was a semi-final.. As the original. list stood immediately before the matches of August 7 were played, the match Petone v. Athletic could not be called a .semi-final, with matches to play on August 14 and 21. The Rugby Aliiion claim that they had a right to bring the teams together, and declare any one match a semi-final. That is tho only reason on which they can attempt to Justify their action in removing the match. They have their defence on the'words, "if time permits" in their .letter of .June 21. _ I cannot agree with their argument. Time did permit to play this match at Petonc. It turned out that it was a semi-final as arranged by defendants, but results might have been otherwise. In my opinion the match was not a semi-final in tho true sense of tho word. Tho experts, who gave evidence, were equally divided on the question, who declared it a semifinal, did so on the mere ground that the defendants. had declared it a semifinal. . ;'As to the. amount of the .Petone Council's claim,' I think it a reasonable one. , Judgment' was accordingly given for plaintiffs for .£25, with costs. Mr. R. C. Kirk appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. A. L. Herdman for defendants. .WAS FRAUD INTENDED? The Pronse . Lumber, Ltd., sued C. G. Johanu, contractor, 0f'306 Adelaide Road, to recover the sum of £65 os. Bil., as damages for alleged fraudulent - misrepresentation. Mr. T. Weston appeared for the plaintiff company, and Sir. A. 'Dunn for defendant. Plaintiffs alleged that on or about December 1, ISO 9, defendant fraudulently represented that Oscar Jorgenson, contractor, of 30G Adelaide Road, had obtained a contract in his own name from a Mr. Fitzsimmons, for tho erection of a building at Murita'i, and that, he (Jorgenson)' required timber amounting in value to £65 14s. Bd.,'for the erection of that building. Relying on these representations,'' plaintiffs supplied defendant, but had not been paid by O. Jorgenson, , who has now become insolvent, and has assigned Ins estate for the benefit of his creditors.. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendant Johann (and not Jorgenson) had .obtained the contract from Mr. Fitzsimmohs, and had received tho contract price. ' ■ . i Tho defence was a denial of misrepresentation, and a contention that the whole transaction was bona-fide. It was further contended that- if there had been misrepresentation, the Prouse Lumber Co. had 'suffered no loss. After' hearing lengthy evidence, tho magistrate granted an adjournment till Thursday to permit of the formal production of tho deed of assignment of Jorgenson's estate. FARMER AND DAIRYMAN. Reserved decision was given in the case of Thorwald Christensen, farmer. 1 Te Horo, v. Thomas.Hill, dairyman, of Johnsonville. This was a claim for the sum of £130 13s. Id., being made up of two items, one for milk sunplied nn<l upio'd for to the extent of £39 13s. Id., and the other for breach of agreement, for which tho plaintiff claimed £91. Defendant counterclaimed for £29 for loss of customers through alleged bad quality of tho milk, and for alleged wrongful determination of the agreement. Judgment was given-for plaintiff for £39 13s. Id. on the claim, and also for tho plaintiff on the counterclaim. The usual costs were, allowed in both claim and counterclaim. Mr. Kirk appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. P. Jackson for defendant. HYDROPATHIC TREATMENT. Walter F. Potts, masseur, of. Wellington, sued Anton J. Max, labourer, of Carterton, for £9 105.,* fees for four weeks' hydropathic treatment to defendant's son. Mr. Anderson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. H. Hart, of Carterton for defendant. Tho magistrate, without calling on the • defence, gave judgment for defendant, with costs, £4 155. 1 UNDEFENDED CASES. , ' ■ Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in the following undefended cases: Henry North and Co. v. Henry C. Cochran, £11 13s. 6d., costs £1; Charles Jones v. Kee Sue and Hop Sing, £7 14s. 9d., costs £1 Gs. 6d.; Robert Martin, Ltd., v. Frank Cameron, £7 9s. 6d., costs £1 6s. Gd.; W. G. Scott v. William E. Bardley, £19, costs £1 lis. 6d.; C. and A. Odlin Timber and Hardware Co., Ltd., v. Norman Campbell, £1 9s. 7d., costs 55.; J. Swindalei v. J. H. W. Urn, £5 Is., costs lis.; R. and E. Tingey hnd Co., Ltd., v. George Patrick Hanna, £4 ss. 7d., costs 10s.; John Charles Ivilby v. W. M. Jackson, £18/ costs 175.; Wellington City Council v. Ernest Duncan. Richards, £17 12s. 2d., costs 155.; Stewart Timber Glass and Hardware Co., Ltd., v. Ernest Freeth, £13 35., costs 155.; Wellington Fresh Food and Ice Co., Ltd., v. Thomas J. O'Hagan, £26, costs £2 4s. 1 JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. F. S. B. Waite was ordered to pay £22 2s. lid. to W. Littlejohn and Son on or before December G, .1910, in default 14 days', imprisonment at Wanganui. No orders wire made in the following judgment summons cases:—Henry Bigg's v. Evnest Archer; a claim for £7 2s. 3d.; Flora M'Doiigail v. Henry Darby, a claim for £10 ss. 9d. POLICE CASES. (Beforo Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) . Patrick Carroll, against whom there were twenty-one previous convictions, pleaded guilty fo a charge of using threatening bohaviour in Taranaki Street, 'whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned. Ho was fined 405., in default seven days' imprisonment.. Two fiist-offending inebriates were eacli fined 55., with the' alternative of 24 hours' imprisonment.