MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 14982, 30 April 1909, Page 5

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHUROH. Thursday, April 29. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) Remanded. —Herbert Anderson was remanded until Monday to answer a charge of having received from Stephen Golding one watch an'd chain valued at £3, the property of Grace Purchas, well knowing it to have been dishonestly come by. Bail was allowed in £SO and one" surety of £SO. Thomas John Ireland Windsor was charged with, breaking and entering the dwellinghouse of Joseph Hutchinson and stealing two gold rings, one watch and one clock to the value of £6 15s. Accused was remanded until; next day.—Alfred Seeker was remanded "till next day, when he will he charged with wilful and obscene exposure in a public place. . Undefended Cases. —Judgment was entered in default for plaintiffs, with costs, in : tbe following cases Adams, Ltd. (Mr Johnston) v. •C. 0. B. Lamb, £25; S. P. Bull (Mr Leathern) v. J. H. Ham'ley, £2 12s 6d; Trade Auxiliary Go. (Mr Taylor), v. James Purdie, £2 3s Sd; Cyclopaedia : Co. (Mr Flesher) v. Nicholas Moloney, £3 3s; same v. G. T. Stockwell, £4 4s ; same v. H. Woodhouse, £2 2s; G. H. Buckeridge (Mr Flesher) v. Charles Nelson Hodder, £l; Smith Bros. (Mr Rowe) v.. Ernest Branaghan, 19s 6d; David Collins (Mr Hunter), v. Samuel Smith. £9 7s; T. and' N. Line (Air Vincent) v. F. N. Bartram, £2 3s; same v. P. Kennedy, £1 ss; Christchurch City Council v. Charles Largo, £4 9s sd; same v. Geoige ArCntcheon, £7 13s 10d; same v. Harriet Wood, £4 19s 6d; eame v. A. S. Lamb, £2 6s; same v. Ellen Jackson, £2 17s 7d; same v. Charles William Nixon, £2 ss*6d; same v. Isabella Doherty, £1 ISs lOd; Motor Import Co., (Air Flesher) v. W. R. Anderson, £5 3s; New Zealand Acetelyne Gas ■ Co. • (Mr Hunter) v. W. R. Anderson, £5 16s lOd; Christchurch Aleat Co. (Air E. T. Harper) v. H. Aianning, £4 11s sd; J. Harrison and Co. v. F. H. Henderson, £2 17s.

Judgment Summons Edward M’Kewer was ordered to pay Munro and Hickinbottoin the sum of £6 forthwith; in default seven days’ imprisonment. Judgment for Defendant The International. Harvester Company (Mr Hunt) sued Charles Hector Dudley , (Mr Johnston) for £l2, being the cost of a set of disc harrows alleged to have been supplied to the order of defendant. Mr Johnston claimed that under the* Companies Act it was necessary for a foreign company trading in New Zealand to produce a power of attorney before auv claim could be made in the Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrate overruled the technical point raised, as the claim was under £2O. and said he would treat it on purely equitable lines. The defendant admitted giving the plaintiff’s agent an order for the harrows, but it was given conditionally on its being confirmed when the defendant -ascertained if it was a proper implement for his requirements. He stated that before the harrows were delivered he wrote to the plaintiff’s agent cancelling the order and refused delivery. Judgment was entered for defendant with costs. Claim for “Extras,’’ —Wells and Rosindalo (Mr Frazer) claimed £2l 17s from Charles Griffen. (Mr Barrett) for a number of extras, in connection with a contract for building a. house. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for £2O 4s 6d. On a counter-claim for £8 10s the defendant obtained judgment for £5.

; Contract or Open Account. —P. and D. Duncan, Limited, (MrWeston) sued A..R; Craddock (Mr Hunt) for £4O. 9s 5d in respect to the cost of building and erecting a lift. At the conclusion of a good deal of technical evidence the Magistrate said that lie must hold that the case must turn on. the value of work done and not on approximate prices supplied before the order was given. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for £25 and -costs. Claim Against an Insurance Company.—Thomas Dixon (Mr Hunt) claimed ' £IOO from the Australian Alliance Assurance Company (Mr Harman) on a policy of insurance over a cottage in Montreal Street that -was destroyed by ‘fire in January. The defendant company refused to pay the insurance after the fire, on the ground that between the time the policy was taken out, .several years ago, and the fire the risk had materially changed without the company being made acquainted with the fact. Other points were raised by the defence, but they had only a contingent bearing on the legal aspect of the case. Evidence was given that when the policy was taken out the cottage insured was occupied as a dwellinghouse, but subsequently both the ownership and the tenancy of the premises changed without the company being informed. At the time of the fire the building was in the occupation of Chinamen, who carried on the business of laundrymen there. After five

witnesses for the defence had been examined at considerable length Air Hunt applied for an adjournment, in order to consider whether he should call evidence or should rely solely on legal argument. It was conceded at ’this stage by both parties that tlye action depended mainly on the question as to whether any legal obligation rested with the plaintiff to give notice of changes of occupation in insured, premises. The case was adjourned till a day to be fixed later.