GOVERNMENT VALUATORS AND NELSON CABMEN.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXI, Issue 254, 26 October 1897, Page 2

GOVERNMENT VALU ATORS AND NELSON CABMEN.

A CASE IN COUET.

A case of somo interest at tho Magistrate's Court to-day was a suit for .£1 cab hire by t\ Haase against T. Kennedy Macdonald, the chief valuer for tho Government. Mr Fell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Maginnity for defendant, Mr Fell said that tlie defendant had hired a carriage from the plaintiff for Sunday week, and in ordor to supply the order plaintiff had been compelled to alter liis arrangements and borrow horses. On the Saturday, however, a message was left that tho carriage would not be required, us ho was not going out. Meantime Mr Macdonald hired another carriage. Plaintiff then claimed piyment, but was told by Mr Macdonald to go to Mr Kenny, the district superintendent of valuers, aud to another place. Efforts had been mado to have the matter settled, but plaintiff had refused. Thomas Haase, cab proprietor, said that on Wednesday week Mr Kenny had hiredji carri-igo for Mr Kennedy Macdonald for Thursday and Sunday." The Sunday engagement was siibject to tho horses giving satisfaction on tho Thursday. Ou roturn satisfaction was expressed by Mr Kenny with the horses. Air Kenny did the whole of the hiring. Witucss understood on the Thursday that tho carriage -would bo wanted for the Sunday, and Mr Kenny left Nelson, witness being instructed to have the carriage at tho Masonic Hotel on the Sunday at (MS a.m. On Saturday witness saw Mr Kennedy Macdonald, as he had been told tho trip had beon abandoned, and Mr Macdonald said ho would not havo countermanded tho trap had he been going. Mr Macdonald then told witness to come on Monday morning to square up. On tliat day witness received _£1 and a voucher to sign for the hire of the trap on tlie Thursday, but witness insisted on seeing Mr Macdonald, and had to waste some time beforo he could see him. At the interview witness claimed some consideration, as anothertrap had been hired by Mr Macdonald. Mr Macdonald got angry, and said ho had never hired the trap at all. .. Ho told witness to go to Mr Kenny, and to— somewhere else. To Mr Maginnity : I was paid for the Thursday trap hire. I kopt my temper in the interview with Mr Macdonald, and it is a wonder that I did. I had to borrow two horses from Mr Gay, and to cancel an engagement with Dr Gibbs. Mr Macdonald never mentioned the Government in the matter, but I gave a receipt on a Government form, and knew Mr Macdonald to boa Governmont officer, Mr Macdonald did not personally engage tho trap. ° To Mr Fell : Mr Macdonald came personally to countermand the Sunday order, and ho paid me for tho Thursday's hire. James Wm. Haase, son of plaintiff deposed to receiving explicit instructions for hire of trap and horses from Mr Kenny for the Sunday for the use of Mr Kennedy Macdonald. Mr Maginnity said Mr Macdonald did not acknowledge any liability to thu plaintiff, and application should have been made to Mr Kenny. Tho defendant had defended tho caso on principle, as a Governmont officer. It had been clearly shown that Mr Macdonald had had nothing to do with the engagement, and Mr Macdonald declined to be hound by the action of Mr Kenny. But he (Mr Maginnity) would set up a technical defence in tho absence of the defendant, under tho Crown Suits Act of 1881, which the plaint-.1l iiad not complied vitji, i,.,., in getting a certificate of his claim. Neither had the plaintiff established Mr Kenny's position as the defendant's a«eut. Mr Fell said his client was not suiu<* the Queen, but a defendant whohappencd to bo a Government official who wantpd to go out antl ace his friends on a Simday, 'lo admit that the plaintiff could not he sued becauso he was a State officer %vas preposfeious, for on thnt, basis such a person could gat goods horn all sorts of S?."'.;;" 1 , 1 !; 1 * 1 P leild tho Cr °>™ His .Vorsh p hc-ld that ati- Fell had made a complete answer, and shown that the (iucc-ii was not being sued, but Mr Kennedy Macdonald, as an individual Mr Maginnity asked for an adjournment to prove that Mj- Macdonald was on Government business on the Sunday - Mr Full said the defence was contemptible and trivial, Ho was warranted in saymg Una in viow of tljo language used by defendant to plaintiff. His Worship held that tho Crown Suits Act did not apply as matters seemed to stand. Moreover, cab hire coidd not be claimed tor n enh nofc used, honee the question was ui.o ot damage*. Tha tovm of particulars would therefore bo umci>dod to show a claim for damages for breach of contract. Mr Maginnity, continuing, said plaintiff had not called witnesses to show the damage lie had sustained, ai^d he had nevor presented himself on the Sunday to see if ho was wanted. Hence, if there were any damage, it would be small ' His Worship said the agency of Mr Konny had been recognised by the defendant by going to the plaintiff's and countermanding tho order. Nor had he repudiated Mr penny's agency at tho interview with tho plaintiff. l n short the agoncyhnd beeu practically admitted In _ consequence, of the contract the plaintiff had had to make certain arrangements which could not bo altered a°*aui and had thus sustained ao m e inconvenience aud loss. Plaintiff was therefore entitled to somo compensation for damage for breach of contract. A md" ' ment was given for plaintiff for io 3 " damages and costs 6s. i