R.M. COURT-THIS DAY.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 4939, 14 June 1887, Page 3

R.M. COURT-THIS DAY.

(Before G. A. Preecb.Esq., R.M.)

At the U.M. Court this morning, the following civil cases were dealt -with •<—■ '■' # " ■ Chamber of Commerce v.iredericJi Sutton. Mr Cornford appeared for-, the defendant, and took objection to the summons. There was no such corporation as the Cnambor of Commerce, and, he objected to the whole tiling. The Chamber of Commerce must sue in the name of all the members. Besides, there -was actuallyno plaintiff, and the secretary or chairman of could riot bo reckoned as plaintiffs. The summons read "Chamber of Commerce", jas plaintiff. The R.M.: . " "Who ■ appearsrfor the Chamber of Commerce ?" Mr Miller, chairman of tl;e. iustitufioa; "Tbe -eecre--

"taryVMr Chamberlain, does,"' Mr' Chamberlain did not appear, and Mr Miller said he appeared for the' Chamber;' Mr Miller: " The Chamber.of Commerce is a body of ge'ntleirien joined together' as a Chamber—" Mr Oortiford: " Your Worship :■ I object to Mr Miller addressing tho Court." Mr Miller : "It is only a small matter for Your Worship t'i decide.". Mr. Cornford: "The Chamber of Commerce, as an incorporated body, must.all sue." The R.M. : " Thero ie no appearance of the plaintiffs, and-the case is struck out."

Corless v. Jeremiah Do wling (Mr" Las-; cellos for plaintiff), £'28 2s (3d, costs £2 Gs,; witness's expenses Ss, solicitor's fee £2 2s. —' Peter Gillespie y. J; B. Vernon, £24. 18s, costs £ 1 10s. To bo paid at the rate' of £2 16s per month.— L. Moore v. Matt Good- , , year, £i Ins Gd, costs 6s —A. McKay. v. : Richard Bulled (Mr Leo for plaintiff),' £i, costs 6s, solicitor's fee £1 ]n.—Goulding v. ; Alexander C. MacLintock (Mr Dick for. plaintiff), £15 10s for rent, co.sta £1, solicitor's fee £1 Is. " \

Thomas O'Rorke v. G. P. Donnelly. Mr: Lascclles for the plaintiff, and Mr J. Begg for tlie defendant.-—Mr Lascelles said plaintiff was engaged as agent for the defendant to take letters to Patea., It was; during , the week in which, the Northumber-; land was wrecked, when the weather was: so terrible. Plaintiff,-at .the-peril of< his own life, proceeded to Patea to fulfil his engageraont: he arrived there safely, but encountered very heavy weatbei , ; "When plaintiff came back he was offered :£5 to repay him for his work, which sum was not even sufficient to pay for his expensßS_ on the road. Five pounds had been paid into Court. All they claimed wpro the expenses on the road, going and coming, which was £0 .Is Cd.—The plaintiff, Martin Ryan, George Eymer, the defendant, and Charles Palmor, g.ive evidence.—For the defence Mr Begg held that the charge was most excessive, and thought tlmt.■-His. -Worship could see that what they had paid into Court fully repaid plaintiff for his expenses. —Mr Laseelles said he would leave it in the hands of. His Worship. The item was very small, and the man had trusted that Mr Donnelly would have paid him what wae actually due for the work done.—Theß.M. said the defendant was v<:ry foolish in not having made an arrangement with the plaintiff. He considered the charge was excessive. He did not think plaintiff should have allowed simply the lowest price for such work. In reference to the charge for the horse he did not think plaintiff should have hired a horse, as Mr Donnellycould have_ supplied him with one. He took that into consideration. If plaintiff had used his own horse something might have been allowed for it. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for' £o 15s, with costs 19s, solicitor's fee £1 Is, witness's expenses 18s.

Faulknor v. Henry Lawton, Mr Dick for 'plaintiff and Mr Lascelles f or' defendant. This was a case in which plaintiff claimed ; £13 15s as damages caused by the deiondant driving into the plaintiff's cab, whereby the horss and cab were damaged, the defendant not having had lights on, his vehicle. A number of -witnesses wero examined.— Mr Lascelles said there was no proof shown.; that the horse had sustained damages to the extent of £10, as claimed. It was absurd ■< to say that- the horse had received injuries to that amount. —Tho R.M. said it wasclear that there was negligence on the part;: of the defendant, who should have taken, greater care, knowing that he had no lights on his vehicle. The plaintiff had been! damaged both by loss of time and through ! injuries to his horse and cab. Hβ would give judgment for plaintiff for £8 los, with costs £1 11s, witnesses' expenses £1 10s, solicitor's fee £1 Is.

The Court then adjourned,