MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18266, 6 December 1922, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

I »- SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT. QUESTION OF LIABILITY. An action to recover £59 damages for alleged negligenco or breach of contract or of duty was brought by George Walker (Mr. Dickson), auctioneer, against tho Motor Transfer Company, Ltd. (Mr. Mackay) in the Magistrate's Court yes- , terday. The case was a sequel lo an accident in Wallace Street, Ponsonby. ' on May 19, when a pedestrian received , , injuries through falling over a heap of scoria in the street. Plaintiff's statement of claim set out thafon May 17 he pur- i chased a quantity of soil from George, Penman, contractor, and on the same , date defendant company agreed to remove tho soil at once. It was alleged that by reason of the negligence of defendants, or by reason of breach of contract, the soil was not removed nor lighted* As a result one H. A. Wright met with an accident on the evening of May 19 and recovered £29 10s damages against plaintiff. Mr. Penman was claiming an indemnity in respect of £29 10s ' damages recovered against him. It was i stated that plaintiff had paid tho whole of the damages, amounting to £60. It was contended that defendants were liable for damages on the grounds that the damages suffered might be supposed I to have been in the minds of the parties . at the time of making tho contract; both ' parties knew that the soil was lying on the roadway, that plaintiff did not livo ' at tho place from which the soil was ex- - cavated, and that it would be dangerous to leave the soil on the road. The defence was a denial of liability, ' defendants setting up that the damages were too remote and were not within tho l : contemplation "of the parties. Decision was reserved. i __ J PROMISSORY NOTE CASE. ' A claim for £20, amount of an enr doreed promissory note,was made by J. r H. Davies, land agent (Mr. Dickson), as s holder of tho note, against E. Harvey (Mr. Indcr), farmer. Plaintiff gave evi- „ dence as to having cashed the note, and ! said that before it fell due defendant v intimated that he was not going to meet it. Tho note was subsequently dise honoured at defendant's bank. Defendant T gave evidence that last June he was inw ' duced by a certain firm to take a lease u of a property at Drury, and in considera--1 tion he gave the promissory note. Sub- '' sequently he discovered that the transae- * tion was not a bona-fide one, and in July a cave notice that payment on the bill was * to be stopped. He received no notice that i the noto had been presented and dis- | honoured. ~,,/,. ,-,-«• ; The magistrate held that plaintiff was i- ! entitled to payment. Judgment was ac- >£ cordincly given for the amount claimed with costs- ' ''• THE GLASS THAT CHEEPS. f Tho practica of serving tea to visitor* is faßt losing favour with the modern d ! hostess. She knows hor guests prefer n and eni'ov a delicious cordial made from * Price's Fruit Syrup Essence Favours t include raspberry pineapple, lemon fa squash, and lime. Is 6d bottle makes I I gallons. It must be Price s.