LAND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9154, 8 September 1888, Page 3

LAND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings. Friday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies and a Common Jury of twelve.] Jans Prescott v. Allan McDonald.— This was an action for specific performance, or for the recovery of £650 damages. Dr. McArthur appeared for the plaintiff. Defendant did nob appear. Dr. McArthur said that, from their Gisborne agents, after the time for pleading had expired, they found that defendant was of unsound mind. He then wired to Mr. DeLatour, who was acting for the guardians, and he replied that the guardians were unlikely to interfere. He did nob wish to take any unfair advantage, but if the case was gone into, and they got judgment, the guardians could move for arrest of judgment. It was a case of great hardship, extending over a number of years, and when the arrangements were entered into, and for years after, the defendant was of sound mind. His Honor said the claim was an alternative one. Dr, McArthur paid the defendant was nob now in a position to give specific performance, and they now only claimed for unliquidated damages. His Honor pointed out that according to rule 70 when a defendant becomes a lunatic, after service, no further action shall be taken until a guardian ad litem had been appointed. In this case no guardian ad litem had been appointed, only guardians for the estate. He would require to apply to the Court that a guardian ad litem be appointed to defend the action, and notice be served on the guardians. If they then failed to take any action, plaintiff could proceed as in case of default. It would only be waste of time to proceed to hear the action now, as the judgment would be set aside.

_ William Alexander McGregor v. Northern S.S. Co.—This was an action to recover the sum of £877 10s. Mr. Mahony appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. Hesketh for the defence. There was a claim for commission for work done, &c., to which a defence was filed, practically admitting what was set forth in the statement of claim, but setting out affirmative allegations, which formed the basis of counter claims, to which a defence was also filed. Mr. Mahony argued that under these circumstances the defendant in the first action being the plaintiff in the counter claim should begin. His Honor said that would depend on whether the claim and counter claim were heard together. In this instance he thought it better to take them separately, and let plaintiff prove his claim. The plaintiff was an engineer, residing at Pert Glasgow, and this action was to recover £877 10s, commission on certain works carried out by instruction of the defendants. The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff, by notions of the defendant company, during the years 1882, 1883, and 1884, had prepared plans for, and supervised the construction of ie steamers Macgregor and Gairloch, ain engines and boilers for the Wellington, .n pursuance of these instructions, ho prepared the plans and specifications, and submitted them to the company for approval. They were approved, and the work constructed in accordance with them. No specific arrangement had been made in regard to remuneration, and lie now claimed what he alleged to be the usual 5 per cent. The defence admitted the main allegations, but denied that 5 per cent, was the usual remuneration or commission, but that 2£ per cent, was the usual commission, and this they were always willing to pay. In regard to the steamer Cairloch, for which £000 was claimed, the defendants pleaded that the work was so carelessly carried out that the steamer was practically useless until she had been altered at great cost. This, however, was the substance of the counterclaim, and all that the plaintiff had now to prove was the item of commission, and in support of the claim for 5 per cent, the plaintiff gave evidence. The plaintiff was in Port Glasgow from June, ISS'2, to October, 1884, in connection with these works; in fact, he went home with regard to them. He returned to New Zealand in the Gairloch. He charged 5 per cent, on the gross amount expended. It was the usual commission on the Clyde, and was a fair and reasonable charge. George Fraser, junr., engineer, gave evidence to the effect that the charge was a fair and reasonable one. In regard to the commission Messrs. C. B. Stone, C. Houghton, and J. M. Brigham, secretary of the Harbour Board, were examined as to the commissions paid on building and construction of vessels. Alexander McGregor deposed that the plaintiff in this action was his son. Witness was managing director of the Northern S.S. Co. until Ist Juno last. His son had been an apprentice at Fraser and Tinne's, and afterwards employed by the Northern S.S. Co., and he wont home to perfect himself in his profession, and witness made the necessary arrangements for his going home. He was about twoyears perfecting hisprofession, and while he was home the duties for which he was suing were performed, and nothing was said to him about remuneration until after his return, when witness asked him to allow it to stand over. In cross-examina-tion witness said that plaintiff may have spoken to him as to his remuneration. Witness was one of the largest shareholders. He believed 5 per cent, was a fair charge for the duties done. He had been asked 5 per cent, for inspection only in regard to the Glenelg. Mr. Hesketh put in a letter from the plaintiff to his father, who was managing director of the company at the time. It whs in effect that he was attending classes for ship draughting at Greenwich, and the School of Marine Engineers. The counter claim was then, by direction of the Court, opened by Mr. Hesketh. The plaintiffs claim was for £600, 5 per cent, commission on £12,000, cost of the Gairloch, and the defence was, that instead of drawing 6 feet 6 inches she drew 8 feet G inches, that the veSkwany £1800 to lengthen the plans, and plaintiff L ?notftfP')HP.V. Said that she was so before taking delivery, and lie was not entitled to claim for commission. The correspondence re the transactions for the construction of the Gairloch was read by Mr. Hesketh. The company j claimed for £1880, expense of altering he ship to make her available for the trade for which she was intended. Mr. Trevethick, naval architect, gave evidence that the Gairloch, under the conditions of the contract, could never have drawn 0 feet 0 inches. In cross examination, lie said he was now teacher of drawing in the University. He drew plans for the tug-boat Awhina, and supervised her erection. It was not true that she drew 13 inches less than he specified. She agreed exactly with his calculations, and there was no error in draught. A tank was pub on her, but not that lie specified, and it was not to bring her down to her designed draught. George Fraser, senr., deposed that from the plans he had made, and his calculations, he thought that the Gairloch could not have been brought to draw only G feet 6 inches of water-with her engines in their present position. In answer to His Honor, ho said he never personally saw her tried with 65 tons and 15 tons of coal in her bunkers, and he could only tell her draught under such circumstances by calculation. Peter Baxter, engineer of the Gairloch, who was on the Gairloch when she took her trial trip on the Clyde, in the capacity of chief engineer, deposed that only from hearsay from the plaintiff he ascertained that the draught was 6 feet inches, being an inch and a half over the proper thing. Witness arrived in the Gairloch in Auckland, and the steamer was put in dock, and when she came out she was drawing 8 feet aft and 4 feet 6 inches forward. She had then on board only 20 tons of coal in the bunkers, and the tank in the forepeak was empty. He filled this, which contained 22 tons, and that made her draw 7 feet 8 inches aft and 5 feet 4 inches forward. Witness continued in her up to the time she was altered, and the least draught he ever saw her at was 6 feet 8 inches when the tank, 10 tons of pig-iron ballast, four tons of coal, and every weight was forward. There was also about 40 tons of cargo, but it was all forward. The alterations which had been made to the Gairloch had lightened her 12 inches at the very least. (Mr. Mahony objected to the question, but His Honor allowed it.) Mr. Hesketh: What is her draught now? Mr. Mahony: 1 object to the question. His Honor ruled that it was inadmissable. The witness was crossexamined at great length. Captain Findlay McArthur, of the Gairloch, who took charge of the vessel after her arrival, was also examined. When docked, after coming out of the dock, she drew 8 feet aft, and 4 feet 4 inches forward. After that the tank in

the forepeak was filled, and 10 tons of pig iron were put in, and this lifted her 4 inches aft, and there were 3 tons of fresh water put in. The least draught he had ever got with the Gairloch going into Waitara was 6 feet 8 inches or 6 feet 9 inches bub as soon as the cargo was discharged she lowered at the stern. The witness was cross-examined at some length. Captain A. McGregor was also examined as to the draught of the Gairloch on her arrival. He found that she was drawing about eight feet, but he could not be particular, as he knew he was mistaken as to the figures. He had her tested in Waitara, and found an inch less or an inch more aft than seven feet, and six feet forward, and he guessed she had then 60 tons on board. The witness was examined at some length as to hie inspections, and in reDly to Mr. Hesketh said that his son had always told him that the ■vessel had stood the test at home. John Cootes, engineer, who was chief engineer of the Wellington at the time •of the arrival of the Gairloch, and who was now superintending engineer of the company, gave evidence that when the Gairloch came out of dock she drew eight feet of water. Witness superintended the alterations to the Gairloch, which cost about £1800. D. B. Cruickshank, chairman of directors of the defendant company, also gave evidence. The claim of the plaintiff never came before the directors formally until after his father had severed his connection with the company, and the object placed before them by Captain McGregor in urging the lengthening of the steamer was to bring her to the draft specified in the contract. The Court at this stage adjourned until ten o'clock next morning. R.M. COURT.— [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.] Judgment Summonses. — The following judgment summonses were dealt with :— Official Assignee v. G. Clarke : Claim, £3 3s. An order was made that the sum claimed be paid on or before Friday next, with an alternative of 14 days' imprisonment. J. Page v. Jas. Smith ; Claim, £8 18s. Payment was ordered by instalments of 10s a week. R. Forgie v. J. Rix : Claim, £2 0s Bd. His Worship ordered that defendant pay the sum claimed on or before Friday next, or undergo 14 days' imprisonment. G. Mcßride v. P. Kelly : Claim, £4 los 6d. Payment was ordered on or before the 7th October. J. Boyle v. H. Elliott : Claim, £3 lis 6d. An order was made that the debt be paid by instalments of £1 per month. .T. Pearce v. J. Carpenter : Claim, £4 8s 9d. Defendant was examined, and an order was not made. W. H. Hazard v. J. Carpenter : Claim, £1 16s. Evidence was given by the defendant, and the case was dismissed. J. Knight v. F. E. Rosser : Claim, £14 58 4d. By consent the Bench ordered that the debt be paid by instalments of 5s per week. UnkefendkdCasks.—ln the following ordinary debt cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs : —J. Andrew v. J. B. Williamson, £20 19s 3d (credit being given for £10), costs £3 16s; C. H. Harris v. F. B. Paxton, £4 17s 6d, costs 6s.

A. Graham v, H. Runner.—Claim, £2 83. Mr. Burton appeared for the defendant. This was a claim for rent. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £1 16s, and costs 6s, but of this sum 10s 6d is to be deducted as the costs of an adjournment necessitated through the plaintiff having submitted a faulty oill of particulars.

PAEROA R.M. COURT.—Sept. 5. [Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M.]

Civil Cases.—Henry Alley v. Ireland : Claim £3 9s, for grazing. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Coote v. James Mackay : Judgment summons, £9 Is. Ordered to pay within thirty days, or in default one month's imprisonment. Edwards v. James Mackay : Judgment summons, £15 15s. Ordered to pay within thirty days, or in default one month's imprisonment. Snodgrass v. Hunt: Judgment summons, £8. Ordered to pay within sixty days, or in default one month. These rulings wers given on the ground that conduct moneys had been given to defendants in each of the three cases, and defendants had not appeared in answer to the judgment summonses. A. Hogg. v. Thomas M. Humphreys : Judgment summons, £4 8s lid. Adjourned for one month to enable plaintiff to forward conduct money. M. G. Power v. P. Quinlan : Judgment summons, £18 4s 6d. The Court decided as in the last case. The Court was then adjourned. PAEROA POLICE COURT.Sept. 5. [Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M.] Larceny.—John Gibson, alias Knox, and Thomas J. Moore were charged with stealing from the shop of F. W. Law, Thames, certain articles of clothing. Constables Mitchell and Berne gave conclusive evidence, and prior convictions were proven against Gibson, who was sentenced to six months' hard labour. Moore was sentenced to two months.

C. F. Mitchell v. P. O'Neill (for using threatening language).—There was a cross action, and the case was the usual neighbours' quarrel. O'JSeill was sentenced to imprisonment until the rising of the Court, and the cross action was dismissed.

Police v. Kinsella. — Defendant was charged with cruelty to'2l sheep by leaving t hem in an enclosure 50 hours without food. A plea of guilty was put in, and defendant was discharged with a caution, it being evident that there had been some misunderstanding. H. Buktt v. Ann Jones. — Wilful damage to property. Case dismissed.