MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVI, Issue 44, 20 August 1908, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

RESERVED JUDGMENTS. CONINGHAM v. CLARK. Reserved judgment in the case of Arthur Coningham versus Mrs. Ellen Clark, dealer, was delivered by Dr. M'Arthur at tho Magistrate's Court today. The plaintiff claimed the sum of £136 as remuneration for special services in specially securing (and acting as I' agent) the quartz claim situated in the Armchair Creek, Marlborough, and known as The Tasman's Choice Claim, late Duke of Cornwall, of 100 acres. His Worship said the claim was an utterly preposterous one. The parties were jointly interested in another claim, the good qualities of which they abandoned, after the defendant had spent a considerable sum of money in exploiting it. 'Of that sum, a fair amount found its I way into plaintiff's pockets. On the advice of plaintiff interest was secured in another claim, the defendant again providing the money, and the plaintiff the mining knowledge. He appears to have been instrumental in getting the defendant to spend some of her money on .the ..Armchair in preference to continue paying it out on the former venture. For the responsibility and labour attached to attending the court at ., Blenheim, pegging out the claim, intermittent 'travelling in connection with the business, and for "introducing and securing" plaintiff had modestly assessed his claim at £136. Further, plaintiff had denied having received the sum of £23, . although his receipt was produced and, acknowledged by him to be wholly in his handwriting. Judgment was given for £10, without costs ; his Worship stating that owing to the ridiculous and extravagant nature of the claim no costs would be. allowed. Plaintiff conducted his own case, and Mr. Johnston represented defendant. CASELBERG v. BAILEY. Dr. M'Arthur also delivered reservedjudgment in the case of Lionel Caselberg v. Charles S. Bailey. Plaintill alleged that by an agreement of hire contract dated 4th June, 1907, defendant agreed to hire a four-wheeled van, horse and harness. The agreement asserted was that defendant undertook to pay a deposit of £1 on delivery of the van, and monthly instalments of £2 as long as the contract continued. According to plaintiff the agreement set out that if defendant failed to perform his part of the contract, he (plaintiff) could resume possession of tho vehicle, etc. It was alleged that defendant had paid neither the deposit nor any monthly instalments, and the arrears had accumulated to the sum of £26. By plaintiff's action, if was stated, the agreement was then terminated, and delivery of the van wasdemanded, but the defendant had ig--norcd tho domftnd. In his judgment his Worship said he t believed the contract a very fair one, .and the hiro charge reasonable. Thir-. ttee^Q instalments .jvere due^andjigfend;.

ant had paid nothing. He ordered the rent of the van — £26 — to be paid, and the van itself returned. In default, the: value of the vehicle — £45 — must be paid. Judgment would be for plaintiff, with costs £6 16s. Mr Meredith represented plaintiff, and Mr. Hindmarsh appeared for defendant. CIVIL CASES. Judgments were given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases at the ' Magistrate's Court : — Alfred George Manthel v. Joe Hands, £2 and 12s costs ; Mulford and Mowat v. John Giles, £S 6s 5d and 13s ; the Commissioner of Taxes v. Andrew Compton, £5 103 and 8s ; the same v. Alfred Wildon Harrison, £13 15s and 15s; same v. Francis Loudon, £11 and 15s; the same v. Sing Kio, costs only, ss; New Zealand Express Company, Ltd., v. J. H. W. Angerstein, £9 13s 3d and £1 9s 6d; John M. Wilson v. William E. Swain, £8 10s and £1 3s 6d ; P. Hayman and Company v. Tasman Steinmuller, £9 14s lid and £1 3s 6d ; Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. William Park, £27 12s 9d and £2 14s; Young's Chemical Company v. F. Williamson and Company, £4 14s and 10a; Sharland and Company, Ltd., v. Gilbert H. Price, £3 7s 5d and 12s; Wellington Meat Export Company, Ltd., v. J. J. Patterson (trading as Wylie and Company), £31 10s and £2 14s; Commercial Agency, Ltd. and the Wairarapa Daily Times v. Bowntree and Company. £6 10s and £1 3s 6d ; the same v. Kathleen Halle, £7 and £1 3s 6d; International Agency, Ltd., v. R. E. Howell and Company, Ltd., £15 5s 6d and £1 10s 6d ; William Ryan and Mary Evitts, £4 Is and 14s.