MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15625, 3 June 1914, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

PURCHASE OF-v FIREWOOD J

ACCESSIBILITY. OF A BEACH,

The case in which a claim for £110.188. was mado by Vivian Edgar Currie and ' Herbert Garfield Currie, contractors, of Auckland, against Winstone, Ltd., coal and brick merchants, of Auckland, was resumed before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Mr. G. Mulga.i represented the plaintiffs, and Mr. E. J. Prendergast the defendants.

Tho case for the plaintiffs was that on December 5, 1913, Winstone, 1 Ltd., agreed to purchase from them 600 or 700 tons of white tea-tree firewood, which the plaintiffs were to stack on the beach at Kuwait Island within the three months following December 5. The price 'of the firewood was to be 6a per ton. Within the tima stipulated 600 tons of tho drewood was stacked, and tho defendant company paid for 297 tons, but had refused to pay for the balance, viz., 303 tors. Plaintiffs set out that they had been considerably inconvenienced by tho defendant company's refusal to pay for the balance of the wood. The claim of £110 18s was mado up as follows:303 tons of firewood, at 6s per ton, £90 18s; goneral damages, £20. Tho question of tho accessibility of tho spot on Kawau Island, where the wood was stacked, was the central point in the (!ase. R. H. Millburn, land agent, of Auckland, said that he and his brother owned the land at KawLu from which tho firewood was obtained. About 650 tons of wood was sold to the plaintiffs. The place where tho firewood was stacked on tho beach was a mixturo of sand and shingle, and was an ideal beach for loading wood into scows. Witness had been told by Mr. Baskett, secretary to Winstone, Ltd., about tho end of February, that ho w.-.r finding difficulty in storing the firewood, as the yard space was cramped. Tho trouble was accentuated by the fact that tho Harbour Board had taken away 6omo of the*yard room. Mr. Baskett told witness that he had no fault to find with any of tho wood. It had never been mentioned to witness that tho coast on Kawau from where tho wood was taken was dangerous. For the defence, Captain Frank Hammond, a scowmastcr, with tight years' experience of beach work, said that tho beach was all right, but it was hard to get awav from it if thn wind changed to a certain quarter. With threo hands besido himself, it had taken two clays to load 35 tons of firewood at the place wliero the wood was left. Tho beach was not reasonably accessible, and was not reasonably safe. ' Tho firewood * was not stacked in a safn position, and at tho I timo of hi oh tide when witness was at t is beach, tho water was right up to the jod. After Captain W. McK. Thompson, also a scowmastcr. had (jiven similar evidence to that of the previous witness as to tho nature of the beach, tho caso was adjourned until this morning at nino o'clock.

UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended GQS66 .* - - A. and G. Price. Ltd., v. R. H. While (Cambridge), £16 12$; Claudo E. Hemus v. Frederick May no (Rcmuera), £3 3s: C. Dalton v. E. Rogers (Devonport). £3 • lis: The Business Printing Works, Ltd., • v. W. L. Pullingor (Auckland).' £2 18s; Phillip B. Morris v. Colin Campbell (Chelsea). £4 -Is W. Gin son and Co. v. N. B. I.twk (Te Kuiti), £30 Os 4d ; Howard and" "■ Birkett v. Ernest Forrest (Auckland), 17a fed; Twinama and Baker v. E. Loader (Patea). £4 5?: A. E. Macartney v. Harry Edmonson (Whanearei), £1, 3s; W'ingato '» and Co.. Ltd., v. Edward Crawford (Auck- " land). £4 7s: Arthur H. Nathan, Ltd., v. F. T. Fraider (Wailii), £9 6s; . E. K. ' 1 Thomas v. J. Herk, junr. (Ponsonbjj. £3 • ss; H. E. Partridge and Co., Ltd., v. C. ■ M. Inman (To Mate), £3 M;> J. F. i King v. I. Smeaton s (Woodvil!e); v, £2; ! same- v. G. Gunter (Petone), £1 12s 6d; 1 J. J. Eriright v. E. Abbott (Onewhero), ! £5 7s 2d : Wilson and Horton.v. C. '.Hit- : chie (Auckland), 13s; J. F. King v. M. Pointon (Petone). £1 7s6d; J.D.Roberts I v. E. Robinson (Tanmarunni), £13 15s 9d ; Hardlevs, Ltd.. v. John Hunt (Gisborne), | £50 6s'; William Small v. William Jiull j (Auckland). £10 ; Tylden and Spiers v. M. :S. Cameron (Auckland), £101 13s; James iHargreaves v. P. L. Palmer (Auckland). £4 10s; Bond and Bell v. K. Brown (Pakiri), £8 3s; Earthenware Pipe Co., Ltd., v. C. McGuiro (Te Puke), £1 Or 9d ; C. Farrand v. W. Clarko (Auckland), £1 4s 6d; Fry and Potter v. Eugene Fisher , „ (Freeman's Bay), '£l 193 6d; Joseph W. 1 Webster v. W. Solomans (Mount Eden), £2 2s; Harold Rochfort v. F. Rolton • (Thames), £2 Is;- Gilmore and Co., v. 8. C. Bamott (Ohaupo), £18 18s 8d; John Burns and Co. v. B. H. Nicholls and .Son ' "(Inglewood). £45 lis 3d; Archibald Clark and Sons, Ltd.. v. W. and E. Brocklebank (Stratford), £10 183 9d; Frank i Jagger and Co. v. Robert H. Haydin , (Whangarei), £5 17s lid ; John Burns and . Co. v. T. R. Liddell (Raglan), £19 lis 9d ; : Archibald Clark and Son, Ltd., v. J. I). | Proffitt (Alton), £53 6s; Tho Standard Sewing Machine Co., Ltd., v. Charles' ' Simeon 1 (Auckland), £2 4s 6tl; Arthur > Yates and Co., Ltd., v. A. H. Robertson (Matamata). £58 12s 3d; Harringtons (N.Z.), Ltd., v. Arthur Bell (Auckland), £84 4s 9d; N.Z. Dairy Association v. G. 'E. Osborne (Hinuera), £12 0s 8d; Browne Bros, and Geddes v. Miss A. Taylor ■ (Auckland), £2 5s 9d ; Taupiri Coal Mines, lid., v. James McKenzie (Mangatoro), £3 15s; Arthur Yates and Co., Ltd., v. If. I Thomas (Tanairn), £2 7d; Gilmore and | Co. v. J. H. Ward (Onehunga), £17 lis sd: Business Printing Works, Ltd., v. J. A. Silencer (Auckland), 18s 6d ; same v. ,1. H. Fish (Newmarket), £4; Auckland Car. Co., Ltd., v. C. and A. Crouch (Auckland!, £15 6s; and N.Z. Bulletin Co. v. Claudo S. Over (Auckland), £1