MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 20586, 11 September 1930, Page 17

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases:—Prosser’s v. F. O’Keefe, 7s 6d, account stated; J. D. Best v. G. L. Leith, £5 11s 4d, goods supplied; Wilson’s Boot Depot v. J. Cotton (Kurow), £3 8s 6d, foods supplied; John Morrison I‘Lauchlan and Harold John Crawford v. Arthur John Campbell, £6 13s 3d. goods supplied; W. D and H. o.*Wills (N.Z.). Ltd., v. William Crighton, £ll 17s 7a, goods supplied: C. E.DeLatour v. C. A. Lcgge, £4 4s, medical services rendered; Stanton Bros, and Co. v Frederick Williams (Greymouth). £9 Is Bd, goods supplied; Mary Keenan v. Ernest Davies (Milton), £5, amount of board due; Stanton Bros, and Co. v. Thomas M'Call (Taneatua), £4 5s 7d. goods supplied; Farra Bros., Ltd., v. W. Duncan, £1 6s. goods supplied: Otago Co-operative Milk Supply Co., Ltd., v. E. Garden, £4 9s 6d, goods supplied. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Orders for immediate payment were made as follow:—Watkins and Neilson, Ltd., v. George Coutts, defendant to pay £6 Is, in default six days’ imprisonment; George Herbert Fox v. W Duncan, defendant to pay £6B 13s lOd. in default two months’ imprisonment, warrant to be suspended so long as he pays 30s per week; F. Newburn y. W Fibbcs. defendant to pay £l3 6s, in default fourteen days’ imprisonment; Keith Ramsay v. W. A,. Duncan, defendant to pay £1 18s, in default two days’ imprisonment: P. Matheson v. Ernest Hanlev. defendant to pay £5 3s 3d, in default five days' imprisonment; Cooke, Howlison, and Co., Ltd., v. A. W. C. Macdonald, defendant to pay £76 17s 4d, in default two months imprisonment. A DAMAGED COAT. The Magistrate gave his decision in the case in which Ellen Elizabeth Reid claimed from James Young and Percy Young (trading as Young Bros.), of Timaru, the sum of £9 9s, the value or a coat destroyed while plaintiff was travelling from Dunedin to Lowburn Ferry. . ~ , The plaintiff’s claim was that, in February last, she was a passenger in a motor car driven by Richard Grieve, which was proceeding to Pembroke. Grieve had received from the defendant company a jar of sulphuric acid, which was placed in the car near the plaintiff. Before the journey commenced, Grieve had informed the plaintiff that the jar contained distilled water, and on the way to Lowburn ho placed her coat on tlie jar, with the result that it was destroyed by the acid. Plaintiff’s contention was that the damage was caused through the negligence ol the defendant company in failing to disclose to Grieve the harmful nature of the contents-of the jar, to enclose the jar in a case, and to seal it in a proper manner. Jn the alternative, plaintiff proceeded against Richard Grieve, the driver of the car, claiming that the damage was caused by his negligence ? in that, knowing what the jar contained, he failed to notify the plaintiff', and after placing it near her laid her coat on it. At the hearing of the case Mr Barnett appeared for the plaintiff, Mr J. S. Sinclair for Young Bros., and Mr Rolfo for the defendant Grieve. In giving his judgment, the Magistrate said Tie thought the probabilities wore decidedly in favour of the version given by the defendant Grieve. It would bo gross carelessness and most reprehensible to place a jar of acid in proximity to his passengers, and one would be loth to believe that a driver would show such disregard for the safety of his passengers. He had come to the conclusion that the contents were not notified on the jar nor was any notice given to Grieve. If defendant had actual knowledge of the dangerous nature of the chattel delivered By him and gave no warning of it to tfio recipient he was liable for resulting injury to third persons. Judgment was given for plaintiff against defendants, Young Bros., for £9 9s, and costs (£4 11s), while the defendant Grieve was allowed costs against plaintiff amounting to £1 Is. This amount was added to plaintiff’s costs against defendants, Young Bros. CLAIM TO RECOVER. John Mitchell Craigie and Harold Booth, organisers for the South Island for Australian and New Zealand Investments, Ltd., proceeded against A. Peverill (trading as A. Peverili and Co.), Christchurch, claiming to recover £8 10s, the difference between the sum retained by defendant as commission on the sale of bonds, and the amount actually allowed as commission by the plaintiffs. Mr H. E, Barrowclough represented plaintiffs and Mr 11. A. King appeared for the defendant. The statement of claim set out that defendant had sold bonds on behalf ot plaintiffs and had deducted from moneys received by him in respect to seventeen of these bonds the sum of €42 10s (which was £S JOs more than the plaintiffs were prepared, to allow him). The defendant had not been appointed as agent by plaintiffs, but on Ins presenting applications for the purchase of bonds, plaintiffs agreed to allow him £2 as commission on each sale. Defendant had claimed £2 10s as com mission. Plaintiffs complained that defendant was not entitled to retain the sum of £8 10s, but it was alleged that the latter bad declined to account for that amouut to the plaintiffs. (Proceeding.),