Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before E. H. Oarew, P]sq., R.M.) Ross and Glendining v. William Black (Olive).— Claim, L 6 17s Gd, on a dishonored cheque.—Judgment for amount claimed by default. F. W. Kggers v. Alfred Mellor.—Claim, L 9 53 3d, for goods supplied and rent.— Judgment for amount claimed by default. Dr Stenhouae v. Frederick Leech,—Claim, L 3 2s 6J, for professional services. Mr S. Solomon for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he was called in to attend defendant's wife at her wish. He had previously attended her during illness, and she had said that she would have no other doctor. He had been paid by defendant for attending Mrs Leech professionally on previous occasions, and considered himself entitled to the amount sued for.—Mr Solomon admitted that plaintiff had attended defendant's wife on previous occasions, had been paid by defendant for those services. Defendant had, however, when paying plaintiff, distintly stated that he did not require his services any further, yet he (plaintiff) persisted in attending to Mrs Leech. His AVorship said that, apart altogether from the moral aspect of tho case, defendant was not legally bound to pay the amount claimed.— Judgment for defendant, but witfibut costs. Alexander Alexander v, John Meade (Outram).—Claim, LIS 63 9d, for blacksmith's work done, etc. Mr Macdonald appeared for plaiutiff; Mr Sinclair for defendant.-—The matter in dispute was as to defendant's liability of Lll for a plough, which was included in tho account forwarded by plaintiff to defendant—After evidence had been taken judgment was given for the amount claimed, less the amount (L 7 6s 9J) paid into Court. Ross and Glendining v. Winter.—ln this previously heard case Ilis Worship delivered judgment as followß : I think tho evidence would be sufficient to fix the liability upon tho defendant if it aleo showed that the cause of acU .n arose in some material point within this district. There is but little evidence of tho term? of the contract, but it has been admitted the defendant was not to pay freight, and that the invoices fent with tho goods from Dunedin included a charge for insurance, and it has been proved that no objection has ever been made to tho invoices. As plaintiffs admit they paid the fre'ght tp Auckland on their own account, the itference from this is that tho carrier was their agent, and the delivery of tho goods was given at Auckland on their account. The implied acquiesence in tho charge for insurance must be taken in conjunction with tho admitted fact that tho risk was covered by an open policy in plaintiffs' name, and that they insire all that they export to Auckland, whether they expressly agree to do so or not, The question now is whether the evidence shows that tho goods were insured by plaintiffs in Dunedin at defendant's request |. if it docs, that is a material point in the causo of action. But tho onus of proylng facts to show jurisdiction is on the plaintiffs, and I think the evidence is more consistent with a ta'e in Auckland at a price with cost of insurance adtlod than that the insurance was elected in Dunedin by plaintiffs as agents for defendant, I must thercforo decido that I have no jurisdiction. Gaso stiuck oat, with costs L3l9s. Cir'Y POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs T. M. Wilkinson and D. Wisbart, J.P.s.) Drunkenness.—For this offence lievit Woods (three previous convictions) was convicted, cautioned, and discharged. Assault.— Hugh Nolt was charged by Kwang Leo with this offence. Mr Gallaway appeared for complainant; defendant did not appear.—Counsel for complainant said the latter was proceeding home on the 23rd inst., when defendant met him and threw a stone at mm. The missile perforated his hat antnnflicted a nasty wound on hiß head. The affidavit showed that defendant had been served with the Bummonj?. Com plainant, a market gardener, said that on the day in question he stopped hfr cart to allow his horse to have a drink, when he saw defendant pick up a stone and throw it at him. The stone went through witness's hat and inflictod a wound. Defendant had often thrown stones at witness, and had given him considerable trouble.—Tho case was adjourned to allow a warrant of apprehension to be issued.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS-TODAY., Evening Star, Issue 7995, 26 August 1889

Word Count

THE COURTS-TODAY. Evening Star, Issue 7995, 26 August 1889