MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3172, 24 August 1917, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

POLICE AND CIVIL CASES. Mr. L. G. Rcid, S.M.. presided at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, and dealt with the police and civil cases.

A prohibition order, to be operative for twelve months, was issued against Herbert Maloney, who wns convicted of being drunk. For insobriety two first offenders were treated in the usual lenient manner.

UNDEFENDED CIVIL CASES.' Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following cases :-N.Z. Palmers' Co-op. Distributing Co. v. ,T. C.owe, £26 14s. 3d. costs £3; Laery, Beveridge and Co., Ltd., v. C. B. Gundy. £3 ,45., costs 135.; Commercial Ageucy, Ltd., and 'Ihomas Horton, Ltd., v. W. Murray, £4 65., ccsts £1 25.; same v. John Itbss, £3 4s. 4d., costs 175.; same t. James M'Laughlan, 7s. 6d costs 18s.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., v Miss S. M. Fisher, £22 19s. 4d. c-ists £2 145.; Mary E. Hilton v. John Walsh, £16, costs £1 10s. 6d. JUDGMENT. SUMMONS. In a judgment summons case, JJ. Ec«s was ordered to, pay tho Wellington Butchers Union tho Bum of £1 13s. 6j. by October 25. or undergo three days' imi.risonment. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. A case whicli took up considerable, time yesterday was that in whicli Bird and Jensen, Ltd., for who Mr. I'. Levi appeared, proceeded against \V. H. Kdwards and Son, contractors, represented by A>r. E. M. Beechey, to recover £25 lor damage alleged to havo been caused to the curk linoleum on the floor in a billiard saloon in Mannors Street belonging to plaintiffs. On behalf of the plaintiffs, it was stated that defendants were contractors for alterations and additions to a building belonging to Mrs. M. A. Williams near the billiard saloou, and in the course of carrying out the contract, it was alleged, improperly and without authority constructed a down-pipe to lead tho water fvcm the roof of the building to a drain in a passage adjoining and leading to the billiard room. On May 7, whilst defendants were still engaged on this work, a heavy downpour of rain occurred and, Ihe drain being unable to carry away the water f:ora tho roof, the water ovcrfloved irto the billiard saloon and caused the damage. For the defence it was contended that tho drain was lurjc enough to carry the storm water from the roof and the right-of-way. The drain was blocked by the debris in tho passage way, and over this the defendants had no control. After hearing the evidence of witnesses including several experts, the plaintiffs were non-suited. Defendants were allowed expenses of witnesses.