MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 250, 16 July 1920, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

POLICE-AND CIVIL OASES. Mr. E.\Page, S.M., dealt with the police cases at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Robert W. 'Rutherford was found drunk' in Kent Terrace oh Wednesday. When arrested and taken to the' Police Station; •ho "was' searched'"jis ■/ usual, .- and. '£38 • 3s. i Jid. ' Yras found 'in. his -possession. .For drunkenness he.was fined ss;, and for com-, mitting a breach-of his .prohibition: order he was'fined 10s„ in' default three days' imprisonment. " '' CIVIL CASES. , - . Mr. VT. 6.- Kiddcli, S.M., dealt with tho civil business, and gave judgment for plaintiff by default in the following caseß: —Vacuum Oil Co. v.-Head' and Thorpe, £9' 2s. 5d., costs £1 4s. 6d.; Griffiths and Co., Ltd., v. On Kee, £J5 2s„ costs £2 145.; IV Panning-and' Oq. .v. K. V. Yenablcs, .£5, costs 19s. fid.; Kia Ora. Oitlvanising Co. v. •Le Cheauong, costs only, 12s.;'F.' Fanning y. H. Bates, £4, costs. 10b.!. Novelties, Ltd,,, v. O. C. Winstanlej" £1 13s. Id., costs £1 Ib. 6d.; C. E. Femmel 'v. C. F. Williams, £5 18s. lid.,'costs £1 6b.. 6d. f Burns, Pliil'p and Ob., : Ltd„: v. A. Bull, £7 13a. 10d., coßts £1 3s.'6d.V N.Z: Tyre and'-Kubbcr Co. v. E. C. Gaisford £1. pouts ss! G. E. Jr. Hunter v. H. Bates, £55 17s. 4d., coats £3 18s.

0. La Hague and F. Chapman, taxi proprietors (for whom' Mr. W. N. Matthews appeared)' proceeded against' Wilson and Campbell, motor engineers (represented by .Mx. E. .K. Kirkealdie) to recover the Bum of £52 10s. Accordng to the evidence tlii) plaintiffs engaged the defendants to 'execute some repairs, to the differential gear of a'motor-car.; Some'three weeks after the work was done,. and the car returned to'the plaintiffs, an accident, occurred which plaintiffs alleged was due to faulty workmanship on the part of tho defendants. For the dofence it was stated that the repairs to 'the car were executed in accordance with ' the contract between the parties, and was properly and efficiently done, and that the accident was not due to faulty workmanship. ■ After bearing evidence tho Magistrate nonsuited the plaintiffs, and allowed the defendants £4 Cs. 6d. costs. /!

CLAIM FOE PILLAGED GOODS. \ 0. Smith, Ltd., proceeded against tho : Wellington Harbpur Board to .recover the sum of £5 3s. 3d. for two and a half dozen' . hose, which, it was alleged, had been 1 'billaged from a case on the wharf on. March 3. Mr. J. O. Morrison appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. J. P. B. Stevenson for. tho defendant, board. ; For the plaintiffs it was stated that they received a number of, cases of drapery ox ; u.s Euahlne, and the plaintiffs'-' shipping; clerk, in company 1 with .a; representative of the shipping company, went to tho store ;on the wharf, and the cases were opened and the goods checked. The examination; took the greafer part of the morning, and at noon there still remained two caseß which had not been closed down and nailed. The storeman in chargo of the shed insisted upon the shipping clerk! weaving the shed so that it could be closed up, consequently the two cases were left, unsecured. During the afternoon O. Smith's carrier was sent to the wharf to take delivery of the cases. He found that one of tho cases, which hnd oeeri left unsecured at midday hnd been'nailed • up, and tho. Qther was nailed "up ' before delivery. The goods were agaip checked in Messrs. Smith's warehouse,' and it. was found .that/a; sportp coat and, two: and a ■. half dozen hose were missing; A claim was promptly made by plaintiffs on the ..Harbour Board. Later, the wharfinger of ";lho Hjrbour Board held an inquiry among the, board's officials who wore in the shed on tho morning that tho cases were open'ed and uhe goods checked. A jdirector ■ of 0. Smith.. Ltd., and the ahippihg clerk were'present at'thiß inquiry. The board .admitted/that the sports coat had Icon . pillaged, becau«o two of the officials had j, noticed the cont, it being of a distinctive colour, but refused to pay for the hose because there wns not conclusive proof of It having been pillaged while in the custody of; tho boara. For tho -defcnco Mr,. Steveiißon stated i that pillaging on tho wharves had become- a matter of such, frequency and .i oommon knowledge, and tho responsibility ■ In Buch cases was so hoavy on the Harbour Board, that the board had to insist on claimants for losses ndhefing strictly to the rules of law in making claims. Counsel raised a nonsuit point, of which Vho had, given plliintlffs notice, tho grounds being that 0. Smith. Ltd., had not given tho board the requisite month's notico, »s reouired by section 219 of the Harbours Att,. before commencing tho action,'and furtner had not brought their action within three months of tho alleged pillaging. Tho Magistrate agreed with counsel for tlie dofence, and nonsuited the plaintiff. The board did not ask for costs.