LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2114, 3 April 1914, Page 11

LAW REPORTS.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. LOO SHOOK'S CLAIM AGAIN. AGAINST A DOCTOR. . THE CHINESE NON-SUITED. After v an adjournment of some-w«ckg tho hearing of tho case in which Loo Shook proceeded ngainst Dr. Francis Wallace Mac'kenzio for tho sum of £182 for wages was concluded hi the- Magistrate's Court before Mr. J. S. Evans yesterday afternoon. Mr. V. li. Mao* dith appeared for Loo Shook, and Mr. C. H. Treadwell for Dr. Mackenzie. Tho result of the case was that Loo Shook was non-auited. At the previous hearing Loo Shook had alleged that ho had been engaged by Dr. Mackenzie to work en the latter's farm at Hawhia for £1 per ve ; ols< He had worked there for thmso years, tait beyond receiving a pound or two of tobacco ho was not paid any wages, Tho defence was that Loo Shook had been engaged out of charity, and that there had been no agreement to pay wages.

Questioning Loo Shook. ■ Plaintiff Loo Shook was placed in tho box and examined by Mr, Treadwcll. Mr. Troadwell stated that he wished to find out who had advised Loo Shook to proceed against Dr. Mackenzie, and who was going to got most of the money, were Loo Shook to win his case. Loo Shook replied tliat he had taken action ou his oivn initiative. As to who would get tho £182, witness replied that (beyond lawyers' and interpreters! fees and his "helper") he would get oil tho money. Questioned further, witness stated that his "helper" was a witness named Ah Kum. • JJr. Treadwell: Beyond lawyers' and interpreters' fee and money to the witness, Ah Kum, will anyone else receive anything? Witness replied in the negative. His Worship: Each one will ho paid in his professional capacity. Mr. Treadwoll (laugliing); Yes, but I would like to know what All Eufli's professional capacity is.

Was His Story Probable? In addressing tlio Court, Mi\ Treadwell submitted that it was quite p.'aiii that any contract for three years* wark at £1 per week wages (to- Bo paid at completion of the term) would require to bo'in writing. Mr. Meredith remarked that the fact remained that the work bad been done, and peoplo would bo open to terrible fraud if they lvero not paid for Such work. • •

Mr. Troadwell (continuing) submitted that, the inhoient improbability of plaintiff's story must impress anyone. At the time that plaintiff. was engaged ho was suffering from delirium tremens. Was it likely that the doctor would engage him at £1 a wook under such cireumstances? Moreover, at the tune that plaintiff had been engaged £1 per Week l'or farm work was an enormous wage for anyone, especially' tot a Chinaman 74 years of ago. i Final Word for Los SlieOJs.

■Mr:' Meredith submitted feat oe ex- ] amining tlio evidence his Warship would sco that plaintiff's evidence was supported in every particular, while that <>.: Dr. Mackenzie was not at ail corfoborated. As to the alleged rmjjrobabi'iity! of Loo Shook's stay, was it likely that 1 ho would leave a good position in town at 2os. per week to work away in the-back-blocks for eight hours a day for. six days a week (with th<i escep-titHt of wet days), for a period of three years and a half for nothing? Tlio evidence clearly showed that the ChwanHUl had frequently asked for wages, and there was no doubt thatiDf. Mackealate knew that lie 'had asked. Was Dir. Mackenzie's evidence io be relied on i-ii -view of the fact that it had been contradict* ed in particular by lii 3 manager Grey?Moreover, even if his Worship cotild not find an expressed contract, his client was entitled to judgment on an implied contract. His Worship: How are toll wtftled to judgment on an implied contract? Mr. Meredith: On a point of merit. The Magistrate remarked that judgment on an implied contrast i'vould nJeSU a new cause of claim. Tlio Magistrate gave judgment for defendant on the grounds that there was no expressed contract of employment between tho two parties, and t'i:at plaintiff could not change the causa to one of implied contract. Jlr. Evans allowed leavo to appeal..

OTHER CASES, ESTRANGEMENT # THK RING. oorao three years ago Ktcto Evelyn Kruger, of Kaiwarra, met- quo George Wright, a driver, at Lyall Bay. They began a friendship that was destined to last for two years. Id. other words, they nero "keeping company" with each other for that time, wlttn there entered into the little romance a ring.' Usually the littlo golden circlet is the harbiirgef of happiness, but it did not happen so here.' Tho ring, it seemed, bad originally belonged to Miss imtger's mother, but ono evening Wright took it and, somehow broke it and lost it. The result was a lawsuit. Wright was proceeded against in the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning for , the return of the ring or its valuo (355,). Defendant considered the ring was only worth 7s. (Jd..j and lud paid this amount into Court,' plus 2s. (id. costs. Mr. A. Dunn appeared for plaintiff, aiitt Mr, J. J, Al'Grath for defendant. Jiieanor Kruger, mother of plaintiff, stated in evidence that she had purehas-. I ed t'lio ring three years ago for 355., and had afterwards presented it to Iter daughter. An opal had dropped out rf tho ring, and she had frad tit© Julb refdled with gold. To Mr. M'Gratii: iter daughter always wore the ring until doi'ehdaat took it from her. Mr. M'Grath: Do you mean lie taolf it from your daughterly force? AVituoss: ]-In took it once before. Kato Kruger, the platatiif, stated that she had worn tisp ring for twelve months, and that, wfieii ft was taken from her by defendant, it was in good oider, and worth 355. Mr. M'Gratii asked.if witness accused defendant of taking the stones from tliq ring. AVitncss: Thoro were no stones in it. Mr. M'Gratii: Then all that Mr. Wright took from , you was a thin bawl of gold?—"No, ho took a gold ring from me." Mr. M'Grath: Did you not tcfl pcoplo that you wero bringing this action against him out of spite?—"l did -uot tell anyone more than he did.' f Mr. M'Grath: What do you moan by that?—'.'l have kepi my tongue quiet as well as ho lias." Mr. M'Grath: You w;»it to marry him? Witness (scornfully): No, thanks, I bar luxuries! The defendant, Qcorgo WrigM, stated in cvidenco that lie had taken the ring off plaintiff's linger shortly after Christmas. Ho had accidentally broken it in getting off a car st Sfiatoun, aiul. putting it in his pocket, had mteiidcd

to have* it repaired. He had, however, lost it, Mr. M "Ci rath wished to know whether plaintiff 'had asked him to marry her. Witness replied ill tho negative. .Mr. M'Grath: Yon' arc not keeping company with her now? Witness: No, thanks. In giving judgment, tho. Magistrate remarked that-ho was inclined to think that plaintiff placed a higher value oft her ring now than she had done three months ago. Tho crideuco indicated that ther'ring was worth 85s. when it was purchased, hut that, since then, tho stones had come eufc of'it. Ho fixed if.io value of tho ring at 255., and gave judgment for plaintiff for this amount, with costs. USE OF HOARDING. Tim unauthorised uso of a hoarding by Stanloy Grunt formed the basis of a cissijn by Gcarga Patrick Hamia. against tho former, The case camo before Sir. W, G. Rfddell, S,M. yesterday afli-r----noon. Tho sum of £3 was claimed for two weeks rent of certain space on a hoarding fronting G. Smith's new building itl Cuba Street, and for advertising space on a hoarding at tho corner of Cuba Street' and Ghnznue Street. Mr, H. L. Mitohel! appeared for plaintiff, and Sir. I*. W. Jackson, for defendant. ' The facts of. the case as stated were that the- hoardings were token to display the ptfstMs~flf tho Aladdin PantoroiißO Company. Defendant had declined to pay rent for this.^ A noti-stiit point was raised by the defence. It was contended that defendant Grant was only Manager for the WiHonghby Company, and any claim should ha 'mads against that com)JaUy, Judgment was given lor plaintiff for the amount claimed, with £2 Ms. 0:1.

SKETCH PLANS OF HOUSE. , Watts Bros., builders and contractors, proceeded against Alexander G. Hutchison, sheep-shearing machine «*pert, for £12, for services rendered and moneys expended itt th® preparation of sketch plans for. a house at Rosen.eath, which it had been proposed to build f ; >~r defendant. Mr. W. F. Ward appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. J. J. M'Grath f'rt defendant. Mr. M'Grath appied for a-nott-suit on certain grounds, and this was granted, with costs £1 18s.

'. DEFAULT. DEBTORS. Judgment was given for plaintiff hy default in the following undefended civil cases :—C. M, Banks v. C. J. 11. Bob-son, M OS. M, } costs £1 IBa.j Ifirkoaldie and Stains, Ltd., ,t. Arthur Lloyd Collins, £1 12s. @d., 'costs 55.; the Commercial Agency, Ltd., assignees, and Thomas Horton, Ltd., assignors, v. 6. W. Lee, £1, costs 55.; same v. Frederick Meadows, "175., costs 55.; same v. Alexander Meskill, 10-s., costs os,; Lorn and Co., Ltd., y. A. C. Maw, £1$ 95., cost# £1 18s.', $d.; M'Crath and Willis v. Harris!eta) Bra's , £1 3a. 6d.', costs 55.; Frank ferift v. John Ash, C 3 14s. Id., costs 125.; KirfccaWi© and Stains, Ltd.,. v. Spencer D. Pope, £i Gs. 5d. r costs 55.; Public Tmstce v. Annie Niefeol), £23, costs £2 lis,; Commercial Agency, assignees, Mvd Bang, Harris,'and Co., assignors, v Niohalls -and Son, £21 18s. 113., casts £2 14s. ? W. H, feren and Co. v. Mrs. 0. 0. "Williams, £I'lßs. 8d. f costs' Gs. WeffingtMi Drivers' Union v. Edward Lines, £1 Os. 10d., costs 55.; Wellington Builders' Labourers' Union v, ifos&ph Tiyomey, lis. 6d., costs 75.; 'snrao v. Marry Lnieiy, 15s. Gel., easts ?s.; Laery and Co, v, A. Beggs, £7 10s. 3d., costs Bs.; Te Monii' Laud Go. v. Peter Heyes, £48 55.,. costs £2 14s ; , VVelshba-ck Light Co, • v,. DoMe Bros., £1 is. lid., costs Ss.; Bans Scotls v Dan Love, £2 17s. Gd,,.icostS'.-'6s,;-. t3atti> merciaf Agency, Ltd., v.. A. 7'alchett.' £2o !!s. 3d., costs £2 Wis,; Charles Heir:; and Co.. Ltd., v. Bold Arnold, £33 Ills. ■?et,, easts £3 Is.: Public Trustee'V. 'Ed* ward Wills, £13 IDs., costs £1 10s. Oil,; saino v. Robert- M'Ca-rmack, £l ].os., eo-sfcs Ss.; sitmn v. Kniannel Chamberlain, £11 Bs, 7d., costs £1 13s. 6d.

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. A. B, Corrigan was ordered to pay £11 Bs. Gd. to the Palace Co,, Ltd., by April 10; Jam-os Last to pay Wm, Dicker £20 Ss. bv instalments of £1 per month; P. T'gf t-s to pay Ann E. Keith ffi Bs. by » A nvil 16. POLICE CASES. . Bernard Steeu pleaded not guilty to tlio theft of a hicyole, valuea at £i, ■the property -of Win. Burps-s. C'hffifDetective Broberg, in applying for a tamand till Monday next, stati-d that afieused was a married man, and was by flccnpation $ trnnnier oil the Maori. Tlis> remand ,was grant-oil, .bait being al» sQwetl in £IQ and one surety of £10. For insobriety, Rose Eraser was fi-n-jd 205., and Frank Adair and Wm. Darker were- each fined 10s, Two first offenders who. failed to appear were each fined 10s., while three 'other first offeiides's . were couvieted and discharged'.