MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18206, 27 September 1922, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CONDITION OF AN ENGINE. NO WARRANTY ESTABLISHED A dispute over the condition of a second-hand engine was the subject of a civil action, in which judgment was given by Mr. J. E. Wilson, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The' plaintiff was J. B. MacEwan and Co., Ltd. (Mr. Leafy), and the defendant Frank Smyth (Mr. Inder). The plaintiff company claimed £7 17s 6d for goods alleged to have been si&id and delivered to the defendant, and £11(5 lis, the amount of three . promissory notes which were overdue and • unpaid. The defendant counter-claimed for £200, alleging that the plaintiff con- ' tracted with him for the sale and delivery of a good reliable second-hand engine, capable of driving a four-cow milking machine plant and separator. Defendant contended that the engine as delivered was incapable of performing the work, and he-, thus claimed damages for loss of time and money. The magistrate said the claim, except for the rate of interest, was admitted The defendant rested his counter-claim for damages on a warranty said to have been given by an employee of the plaintiff, that the engine was good and reliable and in good order. The magistrate was satisfied that the engine was capable of the work, and that defendant's difficulties with it were to be attributed to his want of knowledge and to interference by inexperienced persons. He found there was no warranty of the engine, but that it was, with proper hand, ling, capable when sold of doing the required work. Judgment was given tor the plaintiff on the claims, and on the counter-claim, with costs. DAMAGES FOR INJURY.' Judgment was given by Mr. Wilson in a case where H. A. Wright (Mr. Leary) sought to recover £150 general damages and £14 14s special damages from J. Giiw (Mr. BirtlerV, James A. Penman (Mr. Bell), apd George Walker (Mr. Dickson). The claim was based on allegations that defendants wrongfully and negligently heaped up scoria, turf, and other materiaJ and let it remain unlighted at night. On the night of May 20, plaintiff fell ever the heap, and it was alleged that he suffered great pain and shock as a result. The magistrate said the heap was excavated soil from Giles* property, the soil being-*he property of Penman after it was excavated, though before May 20, Penman had sold it to Walker. Plaintiff had full use of his faculties on the night in question, and through the fall, suffered shock, pain, and nervousness. The magistrate assessed general damages at £50. The claim for special damages was not proved. There was no judgment against Giles, while the other two defendants were equally liable.. Judgment was for plaintiff tor £50 with costs. BREACH OF CONTRACT PROVED. Judgment for the plaintiff was given by Mr. Wilson in a claim brought by W. A. Malone (Mr. Cahill) against the New Zealand Wireless College, Ltd. (Mr. Keyes). The plaintiff claimed £13 6s 8d as refund of tuition fees and £10 damages for alleged breach of defendant's contract to give plaintiff practical and theoretical instruction in wireless telegraphy: The magistrate said the defendant had failed to provide practical instruction to which plaintiff was entitled under the contract, and he had thus broken tno contract. The plaintiff paid £13 6s Bcl as tuition fees and he would have judgment for that amount. Damages were assessed at £5.