LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1310, 13 December 1911, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. THF. CASE OF PIERRE CHAPLINAGAINST SEAMEN'S UNION. FINDING FOR XSO DAMAGES. "I hope that the defendants will show that there is true brotherhood of labour by using their best endeavours to get tho plaintiff reinstated in employment as a cook on some steamer or ship, and not take up an attitude of ilhvill towards him, an attitude which is generally associated with the doings of a. tyrannical trust."—So said the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday, after delivering judgment in a rather unusual case of a claim for damages against the Seamen's Union. The parties to the action were Pierre Chaplin, cook, of Wellington, plaintiff, and W. T. Young and the Wellington Hection of tho Australasian Federated Seamen's Industrial Union/ of Workers, defendants. At the hearing Mr. T. M. Wilford, with him Mr. P. Levi, appeared for Pierre Chaplin, and Mr. C. R. Dix represented IV. T. Young and the Seamen's Union. In the course of his judgment his Honour said: "The plaintiff claims damages from tho defendants on two grounds— (1) that they induced certain seamen and firemen to leave their employment because the plaintiff was kept as a cook on board the steamer Nikau; (2) that they threatened the employers of tho plaintiff that if the plaintiff was not dismissed they would prevent stiilors or firemen joining the vessel Nikau, in which the_ plaintiff was employed. "The plaintiff has had considerable experience, and has ever borne a good character, and has proved himself an eicient cook. Tho defendants have not averred anything against either his character or his efficiency. Ho was employed 0 n the.Nikau,.aud for nine months lip had proved himself an efficient cook, phasing captain, officers, passengers, and crew On. board tho Nikau a fireman aimed Irving Rowe had been engaged, . and tho plaintiff has worn that, in confluence of his refusal to provide .this human with tinned fish and cocoa, he conspired with others to get him discharged from his position. Root was what is called the delegate of the <M°n-(luiits-union on board the Nikau. ( lhe seamen and firemen could givo 2-1 hours notice, and leave the shin The plaint fir.4 to the captain against the groundless. 'J hen complaint was mado the ™,T g w of he ">"""<>? t,,at °™ leave next day on their arriv-,1 ,f \l ■" not. remain a fireman iml n - i. T him n? ha<l withT l!' * ,r ?t h Chct "Soft "o °wa" iff Z ; I ■ r,ghts - , nntl ncithor tne~Dlaln that the defendant Vm,™ B " e r CTi en ™ that threat a„d tL""'' ma(fe " s ° °' the defence does not p™ ei ? CB calle(I for thei;-evidence was n n t'° nVl T me «>»t evince orMlcdonald one fr the who.-at-first'a"r,w,l t„ „' • % of -the. menTonn B , he "ouU ft™ lntcrv >=«- with donald \y^ B ?, dvicc ; tc " (, «™l to Mac longing .to the union w l„h\ bl, „»»„ IT from joining the ship? I belie™ t was such a threat Tl,„ :'. e , ,e tller ? Rodgers confirms t'hi, v evi(,cnc , e °f S/liSse?^,^^^ » ? ed »B>»Wdef , anda„ta ,, W disclaimed anyintention of pursuit the course previously followed, t was not necessary to grant any injunction -

DEFENCE OF NON-LIABILITY. NOT ACCEPTED. Judgment was also delivered by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) oil cor* tain preliminary points submitted i„ ™,L nechon Wlth the M Hon in which J Z\l sued C T* S°T raCt ° rS : , 0f Wellington, sued t. J. ,S. Harcourt, land and e°tnfp agent of Wellington, to recover tie sum ofJMM 3s. Id., balancea leged to be due under a building contract. Mr. t. B. Morison, instructed bv Mr. ™,I G r ; 'Vl l>l,eaml , f ?, r tho Plaintiffs, J. and A. Wilson, and Mr. A. W Blair for the defendant. C. J. S. Harcourt, . Briefly the particulars set out in the Bta ement of claim were that J. and Wilson had entered into a contract with (~ J. S. Harcourt to erect a dwelling in Southampton .Street, Hastings, r|., I tract price being ,£HOO. J. f , n d \ Wil son had erected the building, with cei" e™ o S 5 ".ft"- 0 ' 1 . n lT> thosc ecsl 'n? ? 3l s % ;J'l- „ n " s I"" 1 brought the price up to MnH 9s. 2d. A csrtain allowance, However, had been made for omissions and after that the net total was .£1751 lis. lid. from time to time payments had been received from C. J. S. Harcourt these amounting to ,01385 IK JOd but there was still owing a sum of .£3G« i • -~-'■" mlllltl °n t° this amount J. and A. Wilson claimed ,835 for preparing plans, and .£3 3s. for valuation fee. the defence was n general denial bv C J. S. JJarcourt. He stated that in signing the contract and in making the payments he had been (as J. and A. Wihon well knew) acting as agent for Isabel Murray Petersen. He denied authorising any extras. In tho allcrnativc, C. J. h. Harcourt contended that the a<rceinent was for a complete contract, "and that J. and A. Wilson were not entitled to recover until complcto performance had been proved. It was further contended that the agreement aTso provided that all disputes should be submitted to arbitration, and that J. and A. Wilson had not endeavoured to carry out H part of the conttact. A further defence was that by delaying these proceedings until after Mrs. Petersen's bankruptcy had the defence, J. and A. Wilson were not entitled to recover. The questions before tho Court yesterday wore:—(1) Whether C. J! S. Harcourt was personally liable for the contract sued upon. (2) If so, whether anything had occurred since tlie making of the contract, to release him from liability. The question of amount was to be adjusted by the parties afterwards. Alter reviewing the evidence submitted, his Honour held .that the defence of nonliability must fail. The action will now stand over until tho ocxt civil sessions. LAND TRANSACTION. SECTIONS AT ISLAND BAY. Reserved judgment was delivered yesterday by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in an action concerning a land deal at Island Buy. Tho plaintiffs wero Frank O'Brien Loughnaii, Thomas Vernon, Venablcs, and I'rcderick diaries Bennett, and the defendant was Wilheim Fnrquhur Eggcrs. At the hearing, Mr. A. W. Blair ap-

pearcd for tho plaintiffs, and Mr. H. p. V'ou Haast, with him Mr. 11. Buddie, for the defendant. l'Vom the admitted facts it appeared that in 11105 Venables had purchased certain land at Island Bay from Francis Loudon. Under the terms of purchase, .£llO would remain unpaid at 5 iter cent. Venables had .iiibspqupiitly assigned his interest in tho property to Bennett, who, in turn, hud assigned it to the defendant, Eggers. la 1010 the plaintiff, Loughnan, had taken over Loudon's interest in the, property. Plaintiffs .flow claimed that, under the agreement to purchase, there was due to Loughnan tho sum of .£4lO with interest, making in all J5-ISI Ss. Id. -Loughnan was willing to convoy the land to defendant on payment of the money. Plaintiffs now asked' that defendant loggers bo ordered to pay to Loughnan tho sum of .£433 Bs. Id. Defendant Eggers gave a general denial to tho allegations made by the plaintiffs, and stated that Bennett had represented to him that each of tho two pieces of land purchased at Island Bay had a double frontage. Tho agreement, in referring to the sections (Lots 15 and 1(1) said: "Having a frontage to Milne Terrace, Island Bay, and extending from the '.Terrace to Knoll Street, as shown in the plan." Neither piece of land marked in the plan, at Knoll Street was a street at all. Defendant also counter-claimed for recission of the agreement and for .£SO damages against Bennett for alleged breach of an agreement whereby Bennett tad guaranteed that Eggers, upon payment of .£IOO and interest, would be ablo to obtain a transfer of tho land in question. In giving judgment, his Honour held that Eggers must complete the contract to purchase arid take over the l.and, but as the sections did not have the double frontage represented, ho must be allowed .£SO compensation is a deduction from the price. Costs were on the middle scale as agreed upon. TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT, MOTION DISMISSED. In the Supreme Court yesterday morning, the Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout) delivered judgment in the case of Rewar.ui Apatari v. Mrs. C. J. Hansen. This was a motion by Apatari for an order amending a judgment, obtained against her by Mrs, Hanson, by striking out of tho payment and out of the charging order tho claim for. .£43 195., as interest on the judgment obtained in the Magistrate's Court. In the alternative, there was a motion to, set aside both the judgment and tho charging order. The grounds for the motion were:—(l) That the judgment in the Magistrate's Court did not at law carry interest, and (2) that thero was no statutory authority for retrospectively imposing payment ofMntercst upon Apatari in respect of tho judgment recovered against her in tho -Magistrate's Court. Some thirteen years ago judgment was obtained in the Magistrate's Court for -£50, being the original claim and costs. This was removed and entered up as a judgment of the Supreme Co;rt, with interest added. It .was the interest only that was disputed. At the hearing Mr. C. If. Treadwcll appeared for Rcwamii Apatari, and Mr. T. Young for Mrs. Hansen. Tho motion was dismissed with £3 3s. <£sts. At the recjuest of Mr. Treadwell, stay of execution was granted.