MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16822, 12 April 1918, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

SHIPPING! COMPANY WINS CASE. The civil action in which H. JCunioka, storekeeper, Te Araroa (Mr. Campbell), claimed from Richardson and Co!, Ltd., a shipping company, of Napier (Mr. Moody), £31 12s Id, value of a case of cigarettes shipped at Auckland and alleged to have been undelivered to plaintiff at Te Araroa, was resumed in the Magistrate's Court before Mr. E. D. Moseley, S.M., yesterday. Evidence had previously been given as to the case of goods being shipped By L. I). Nathan and Co., Ltd., by the steamer Mako, and to plaintiff not recoiving it. Yesterday evidence was given by the master, mate, and purser of the Mateo to the offect that all cargo for Te Araroa was properly landed, ana that nono fell overboard w'lilc being transferred in a surf-boat from the ship to the jetty. A member of the crew said the cargo in question was delivered to the wharfinger at Te Araroa. In giving judgment, Mr. Moseley held that the shipping company had not been guilty of negligence, but had duly performed all the duties cast upon it as common carriers. Judgment was givon for the defendant company with costs. An action to recover £40 13s 9d for work alleged to have been done was. made by P. Barry, contractor, Meadowhank Road (Mr. Durham), against T. A. Petrie, merchant, Customs Street (Mr, Denniston), in tho Magistrate's Court before Mr. Wyverti Wilson. S.M. The work consisted of ploughing on defendant's land at Ilemuera, which defendant alleged was not done properly. The magistrate inspected the work, and after hearing evidence nonsuited plaintiff, but allowed no costs. Further evidence was heard in the case in which Maria Boric, vineyard owner, Riverhead (Mr. McConnell), claimed £40 from William A. Bryant, orchardist, Kumeu (Mr. Inder), for alleged damages to her vines, caused by defendant leaving her employ at a time when the vines should have been sprayed. The magistrate held that, as plaintiff had dismissed defendant; she could not claim damages for anything that happened because he was not present. lie also considered that plaintiff nad had the opportunity of obtaining a man in defendant's place, and there was no occasion for her to have suffered loss. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs.