Untitled

New Zealand Mail, 29 November 1900, Page 66

At the Resident Magistrate’s fw*. on the 20th judgment was given in tho case brought by Murdoch and Strike (trading as the Zealandia Aerated Water T^ Uf ?u lng 0° nip any) against W wfi refc i h -i a ™ rlne storekeeper and bottle-dealer, for return of certain bottles bearing the trade mark of the, plaintiffs. The bottles in question Lad ‘oeen bought by defendant from bottle hawkers, he having been previously warned by Murdoch and Strike not to purchase any of their glassy property from hawkers. Defendant demanded payment from plaintiffs for bottles recovered in this way; the latter declined so to do, and instituted the present proceedings. The chief point relied on for the defence was an assertion that plaintiffs legally lost property in stray bottles through a proviso on certain -of their printed forms stating that in the event of bottles going astray the person to whom the contents were sold would be held responsible for the value of the lost property. Mr Haselden held that the stipulation was merely intended as a warning to the vendee of the water that he was only paying for the com tents and not for the bottles, and that the latter had not ceased to be the property of the vendor. An order would be made for the return to plaintiffs of 6.V dozen bottles ..bearing their trade dewhich defendant admitted having in his possession. In view of the fact that plaintiffs had inhibited defendant from purchasing any of their bottles. no allowance would Be made to defendant for costs of acquiring them. Costs totalling £2 11s were’allowed to plaintiffs. Mr Dunn appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Skerrett for the defendant.