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.


MAGISTRATE’S COURT, (Before 11. Y. Widdowson, Esq., ,S.M.) Undefended Cases.—Judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default, with costs, in the following cases;- —Marshalls Proprietary. Limited v. John Gavin Morgan ißanfn'rly), claim 7s, for goods supplied ; Johnston. Som, and Co. v. William Luke (Whakapara). claim £2 12= fid, for a book supplied; Robert Robertson v. A. Conzins (Wnimato), claim £5 7s 9d, for goods supplied (judgment for £1 7s 9rl and costs) ; Marshalls Proprietary. Limited v. John Jamie (Otautau). claim £1 9= Bd. for goods supplied; John Booth v. Robert Roberts (Kaikorai), claim £2 15s 6d. for good-, supplied ; M’Farlane and Peden v. James P. Wright (Cavershamj, claim £5 10s. for goods supplied ; the Otago Iron Rolling Mills Company v. Wilson and Sons (Winton), claim £6 13s 4d, for iron supplied ; D.r.C. v. D. M'Kissock. jnn. (Waikaia), claim £1 6s, for drapery supplied ; Christie and Co. v. Arthur Lai-en (Kyebnrn), claim £5 4s fid. on an account stated; John Swan and Co. v. J. S. Cricket t (.Morrinsville), claim £1 15s fid, for labelsupplied ; Thomas Latta v. W. Saunders (Caver-ham), claim £1 ss. on account stated (judgment for £1 Is and costs). A .lodgment.—John Lynch v. Gilbert ! Wright. This was a claim for £2O 10s damages sustained by reason of the defendant negligently and unskilfully driving a. motor car. wheieby the plaintiff vvainjured. Mr .1. B. Callao appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr A. C. Hanlon for the defendant. The case was heard a week ago The facts were that the plaintiff, a corporation employee, was knocked down at the corner of Cargill road and the. Anderson Bay road, and sustained injuries to his foot and shoul-der.-—His Worship, in giving judgment, said it w.v. clear from the defendant’s own showing that if he had proceeded along on his proper side he must have missed the plaintiff. It seemed to him that with ordinary care he could have, crossed without difficulty. The plaintiff was lawfully using the highway, the car came out of a narrow side street and on its wrong side, and where no one would expect If car to be. and it had not been shown that the plaintiff was not taking care. In the circumstances he held that the negligence of the defendant was tho direct cause of the accident, and the plaintiff was entitled to succeed. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £l4 and costs (£5 9s). Judgment Summons.—Ernest 0. Nees v. Robert Lorhner (R-osiyn). Claim, £5 18s 3d, on a judgment summons. .Mr Hay appeared for the plaintiff. There was no appearance of the defendant, who was ordered to pay tho amount due. with costs, forthwith, in default four days’ imprisonment,

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—TO-DAY, Evening Star, Issue 15636, 29 October 1914

Word Count

THE COURTS—TO-DAY Evening Star, Issue 15636, 29 October 1914