MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17754, 13 April 1921, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MOTOR AND TRAM COLLIDE.

Action for damages fails.

Reserved docision was given by Mr. W. P. McKean, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday in ail action brought by W. McPherson and Sons (Mr. A. E. Skelton), bakers, to recover £123 10s 6d damages, from the Auckland City Council (Mr. A. H. Johnstone), the case being a sequel to a collision between plaintiff's motor bread delivery van and a trarocar. It was alleged that the accident was the fesult of the negligent driving by tho motorman, defendant's employee, The rcugistrate held that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the motorman. Judgment was given for defendants with costs. CLAIM FOR OVERTIME UPHELD. Judgment was also given in a claim for £1 5s in payment for overtime made by Frederick Howlieson (Mr. A. E. Skelton), fireman on tho Clansman, against the Northern Steamship (Company. Ltd. (Mr. Meredith). Tho claim was for overtime worked on a trip mado by the Clansman On April 18, 1920, at the time of tho Prince of Wales' visit. That day was a Sunday, and tho trip on which it .is claimed the overtime was worked commenced on the preceding day, when the steatflcr, after arriving in Auckland on her regular trip from tho Northern ports, loft again for those ports for the purpose of bringing to Auckland a number of Maoris who were to proceed to Rotorua to tako part in the celebrations there. It Was contended that-the Clansman was on this trip employed on spedial work or on an excursion within the meaning of the industrial agreement between the Auckland Local Federated Seamen's Union and the New Zealand Shipowners' Federation. The magistrate held that the term " excursionist" would be correctly applied to everyone of tho passengers carried on this trip.' Judgment was for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs.

QUESTION OF TENANCY , Reserved judgment was given in the claim made by Robert Millar, John Millar, James Millar, and William Millar (Mr. •Durham) against Albert Percy Wickins and James Sutcliffe (Mr. Cahill) for £52 for tho use and occupiitijm of a cellar and. yard in Karangahapo Road, which plaintiffs had leased to defendants last July. Defendants claimed that they had been promised the use of the basement during the terms of tho lease, but this was contradicted by plaintiffs Defendants did not question the reasonableness of the amount claimed, but resisted the claim on the ground that tho, question of titlo was involved, and that the Court had no power to determine it; further, that thero was a tenancy which had not been determined by proper notice. The magistrate said the fact that defendants promised in November, 1919, to give posbessiou when they could get out their goods, and eventually did vacate in November, 1920, showed, that thero was no veal claim by them in. respect of the basement. The question of • title was therefore not involved. It was also clear that no tenancy had ken created. Judgment was given for plaintiffs for the amount claimed. REPAIRS TO A MOTOR-CAR. Pomeroy and Co. (Mr. Sellar) claimed from Joseph German (Mr. Dickson) the sum of £41 lis 6d mxtra work done on defendant's car. Tho car had been burned and plaintiffs had given an estimate to the Insurance Company' of work required to bo dono to repair it. Plaintiff claimed that a spaxo tyro and other goods and work had been ordered by defendant, in addition to that given in the estimate. Defendant denied ordering tho extras except te tho value of £1 18s, which had boon, paid into Court. The magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for £2 13s and costs, but nonsuited plaintiff on tho question of ono tyro and tube.