MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume XII, Issue 1807, 4 May 1921, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CIVIL BUSINESS. Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., adjudicated in the civil business at the Palmerston North Magistrate's Court yesterday. Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in each of the following undefended cases:—A. J. Galfichan (Rangiotu) v. Brooker and Gregor (Pohautanui), costs only £1 5/; Bett and Bayly Ltd. (Palmerston North) v. Napier and Ogilvie (Hastings), £ll 0/6, costs £2 14/; same v. C. A. Deadman (Wanganui), £6 2/, costs 30/6; same v. F. C. Rodgers (Wanganui) £6 13/3, costs 30/6; A. L. Roby (Palmerston North) v. James R. Robertson (Palmerston North), £4 15/, costs 23/6; A. R. Molly (Palmerston North) v. A. Scott (Wapganui), £5 17/10, costs 30/6; A. L(. Roby (Palmerston North) v. Robert F. Hay (Paiki), ' £l4 11/6, costs £3 1/; Mayor of Palmerston v. James O’Connor (Island Bay), £2 4/6 (amount of disholoured cheque), with costs 27/6; A. Pinkerton (Palmerston North) v. R. Andrew (Palmerston North), £5 1/6, costs 30/6; E. C. Turner (Palmerston North) v. A. H. Kitto (Raetihi), £lO 12/9, costs £3 4/; Adam Burges (Palmerston North) v. Teni Ropiha (Porangahau), £46 18/5. costs £4 9/; S. W. Carter (Shannon) v. F. R. Cripps (Rapauni, Wanganui), £165 6/, costs £7 11/6; Charles Dahl (Palmerston North) v. W. J. Ladd (Dannevirke), £8 5/9, costs 30/6; Barraud and Abraham Ltd. (Palmerston North) v. Fred Watson (Fox. ton), £ls 11/, costs £2 14/; State Advances Department v. W. H. Read (Ashhurst), £6 15/, costs 15/. i In the case C. A. Phillips v. A. G. McGregor a judgment was given for defendant with costs amounting to £l3 9/.

DEFENDED CASES. A MOTOR COLLISION,

A case arising out of a collision between a motor-cycle and a taxi-car at the time of the Palmerstoin races was heard, in which Stanley Sames and Richard Connor (Mr Martyn Abraham) sued C. B. Ward, a local taxi-driver, for £2? 15/6 and/ £3O respectively. Apparently' Sames was riding Connor's motor-cycle along Foxton Line and was, owing to defendant’s alleged negligent driving/ run into. The machine was considerably damaged. Connor’s claim was for damages to the machine, while Sames’ was to cover expenses incurred owing to injuries, loss of wages, damages to his clothes, etc. Sames contended that he wxs on his correct side. The defence, as put forward by Mr F. J. Oakley, was that the accident was caused through plaintiff’s indecision as to the course he would take at the time, thus compelling defendant to swerve from his correct side to the crown of the road in order to avoid the collision. It was admitted by Sames that he did not hold a license to ride a motor-cycle. His Worship held the opinion that plaintiff Sames was at least guilty of contributary negligence, even though the accident might not have been his fault altogether. From, the evidence, Sames had had plenty of room to pass the car at this particular point. Defendant had only acted as he did at the last possible moment. Judgment was for defendant in each case, the costs of witnesses being entered against Sames. The .total cost amounted to £6 6/. ■ SALE OF A TYPEWRITER, William Ritchie, land agent, Palmerston North '(Mr H. G. Fletcher) proceeded against Messrs Brown and Briggs, local land agnts and auctioneers (Mr J. Grant) for payment of fl 6 in connection with an alleged sale of a typewriter. Plaintiff’s case was that in June of last year Brown entered into negotiations for the purchase of a Monach typewriter. The machine was accepted at £l6 subject to a week’s trial. Plaintiff had pointed out that the machine required a thorough cleaning. However, nothing more was heard from Brown, and it was surmised that the machine was satisfactory. When the account was sent in some considerable time afterwards, Brown Complained that the typewriter was not working properly, Ritchie removed it to his office for an inspection, and found that it was a wreck, so he returned it. The type, writer had been overhauled by Glllard and Bezzant, a firm then carrying on business as typewriter experts.

The defence was that Ritchie had agreed to sell for £l3, with a week’s trial. He had agreed to take it back if it was not satisfactory after being given a cleaning, and overhauling. The typewriter was sent to Gillard and Bezzant, but they were unable to put it in proper working order. Brown therefore took it back to Ritchie’s office, Ritchie being out at the time. The latter returned it the same day and it had been there ever since, but had not been used for the business.

His Worship said the evidence was very contradictory, but at the! same time he did not think Ritchie had proved' the sale. Judgment was for defendant with costs. AUCTIONEERS’ INTEREST.

Dalgety and Co. (Mr Cooper) sued George Allman for £5 19/, representing the outstanding balance of an account. .The amount sued for was made up of interest charges, defendant’s objection to paying being that although he had on previous occasions allowed his accounts to run on over the allowed 10 days, which were free from interest, the company had never taxed him with it before. Evidence was given for the plaintiff company that the conditions of sale, as was always pointed out at sales, provided that buyers were liable to be charged interest if the accounts were not paid within in days. The Magistrate agreed that the company had a perfect right to make such levies, and that the fact that defendant might have been let down lightly before was no defence. Judgment was given for the plaintiff company with costs amounting to £2 G/.