R.M. COURT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 314, 22 September 1888, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

jiHofort J. Alton, lisp, Ii Ii). Fiiihay, rJri’.Ki; 2;st. CIVIL. CASKS. lieni'driii v. Chit.—'lliis case was nd-jmiln.-ii from last Court day to give plaintiff an opportunity of amending the hiil of particulars, which, as it stood, made out au indictable oiieuce againbt the defendant.

Mr Rogers appeared for the defendant Plaintiff, in reply to I • is W orship, said he was willing to have the amendment made. His Worship said plaintiff shomd have seen to it in theiuterval. He would let the case stand at the bottom of the list to allow of the alteration being effected. J. J. Sinclair v. Saul.—Mr M’Callum for plaintiff, Mr MeNab for defendant On the application of Mr Mb Sab, an adjournment for a week was agreed to. Charles Stagg v. Thomas Brimner, a claim of L2 (is. No appearance of defendant. .J udgment by default foramount claimed, an 1 7s costs. -.. Lower Wairiu River Board v. William Sowrnan a claim of LI 17s fid for lates, being LI 5s for 18S6-S7, and 12s fid for 1887-88. - Judgment for plaintiffs for amount claimed, and is costs F. C. I itchfield v. James-Fulton.—• Claim, LI 14s 4d for goods supplied. Judgment by default for amount claimed, and (is eost3. Lower Wairau River Board v. James Stark.—Claim, 12s 3d for rates ; being 8s 3d for 1886-87, and 4s for 1887-88. Judgment for plaintiffs, and (is costs. M Jlealy v. A. ’1 hompson.--A claim of L 4 13s for goods supplied. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, and 6s

costs, Same v. George Atwood.—Claim, 18s fid. Defendant said the summons had never been served on him. The b-ti ill (MrTansley) said he served the summons on a man whom Mr ifealy pointed out to him as being the defendant Atwood. The mail accepted the summui,*.

Mis Worship thought the best way would he fur him to give the parties an opportunity of settling the case out of Court. Plaintiff s'ated that defendant had offered him 18s fid after the summons was issued, hut the former would not gee pt this unless the costs (3s) were paid also Defendant here offered to pay the whole amount, LI Is fid Robert Sloroy v James McGinn. —A claim of Lfi 5s for hoard and lodging. Jn reply to His Worship, plaintiff-said the amount was for 81 weeks’ board and

lodging. His Worship said the hill of particulars attached to the summons was not sulficienfc. It was wrong in the face of plaintiff’s abatement. Plaintiff was not certain that lie was correct in his statement regarding tiie number..q,f weeks. He asked that the case stand over for a short time to allow him to produce his pocket-book, which contained tho entry, ilis Worship said plaintiff should have made the bill of particulars complete. However, he would grant the request. Picton-.Blenheim Railway v. Holmes j and Bell.—A claim of L2O 8s 7d for storage. Mr McCallum, in opening the ease for 1 the plai.itiiis, said that tho claim was for L2O Ss 7d, of which defendants admitted 9s 7d, which wotthl reduce the amount to Lift IDs. 'J'he claim was for storage, and counsel would show that a charge of 2s per ton per week was made on grain that ] remained in the sheds over twelve hours, Mr Holmes had been short of room, and lie had asked the local traffic inanugcr. to allow him to store the grain in the railway sheds at a reduced rate, provided it was conveyed by rail. Tho Minister of Railways was the only person that could < fix the rate, and had done so in the present case, and it had been duly gazetted He called T. H. Barstow, district-traffic manager, who stated that ho was authorised by the head of tho department to bring the ] present action. Ho read an extract from . the Gazette, showing that the charge for storage of grain left at tho station over * 12 hours, was 2s per ton per week. C Early in February this year, Mr Holmes l complained that ho was short of storage ; space, and asked witness if he could get a reduction of tho storage rates for storing « grain in tho railway sheds. Witness submitted a price to Mr Holmes, but the e former received a telegram from the head t of tho department disagreeing to same, i and offering to allow storage at the rate . of fid per ton for first month, and Id per 1 week for each week afterwards, for all grain sent by rail. Witness replied that if that rate was gazetted plenty of business would be dono Witness read the telegram to Mr Holmes, and ho seemed J satisfied, because at tho t-fme he was confident of gutting a ship laid on to Rio, which would probably take away about 3,000 bags, the greater part of which would bo conveyed by rail. Had made demands for payment of the amount to Mr Holmes about once a week for three months (laughter). Witness knew of his own knowledge that the grain had been 1 stored as stated. 1 To Mr Rogers : J cannot say what part of the grain that came out of tho store by rail or what delivered locally. I think, howover, the greater part that has ■ been delivered out of the store has been ’ delivered by rail. The 2s per ton rate is what is called a prohibitive rate”—a rato made to prevent the goods being left at the head stations for long periods. It is a fact that Mr Holmes could have sent the grain to Picton, hack again, and paid i tho lower rato, and yet saved the difference i between 11s 2d and 16s. Mr Rogers ; Now, is not tho claim an - iniquitous one on the part of Government? Do you not think so, Mr Barstow ? Witness : It is not my business to think anything about tho matter; I have to charge according to tho gazetted rates. Witness continued: It was not the Auditor who found out that the charge had not boon mado for weighing. There is no rule to hind us as to the time we should render the Recount for weighing, although the accounts for freight must he rendered every week. To Mr M'Call-jni : I havo heard the other merchants in Blonhoim remark that Mr Holmes generally monopolised tho space in the sheds, but I cannot say that it whs a grumble. With us it was a case of first come first served.” Have heard it said that Mr Holmes “ ran tho railway,” but that was oat chart'. W. W. Blaymires, porter on the local railway, also gave evidence. His evidence regarding the dates of the storage did not correspond with those stated by plaintiff. Mr M-Oalluzn said Mr Feam was ill in bed, and unable to attend Court. He was the proper person to give evidence as to the dates. E. Mead, commission agent, gave I ovid-.-nee a:; to the usual price charged for -t ora go. The usual rate for receiving, delivering and weighing was ltd per hag, an.i Id storage per sack afterwards. To Mr Rogers: Never knew of Fill , Bro< making any concessions in storing e-ruin. As far as f know, they charged , the Redwoods tho full price. Mr Horton , may have allowed something, but 1 always rendered tho acoount in full. * Mr Kogcrs then uddrcfted the Court I fur defendants, ronuudnug 1 that ho would I probably have to comment :n pretty I strong terms on the action of Government i in the present matter. Another thing he j woftld j-ofep to was the manner in w hich j they kept their hooks. What they had I seen that morning of their book-keeping I was simply scandalous. Counsel characterised the claim as a monstrous imposition, and he could not use words strong - enough to give vent to his feelings. The 3 claim was nothing more nor less that a a huge piece of extortion. , 1 At this Gage the case was adjourned t j for a week. ’ The Court then roje.