MAGISTRATE’S COURT

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1745, 16 August 1905, Page 55

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, AUGUST 8. (Before Dr A. McArthur, S.M.) CIVIL BUSINESS. In each of the following cases judgment was entered for plaintiff by default : J. G. Wilkes v. Henry Fletcher, £2 15s 6d, costs 12s; Dresden Piano Company v. James Dew, £l4 7s, costs £1 13s 6d; J. G. Raine v. Shirley F. Grigg, 11s, costs ss; J. G. Wilkes v. Thomas Tillman, £5 i4s, costs £1 3s 6d; R. E. Manley v. William J. Renner, £3 11s 3d, costs 10s; Farmers’ Co-operative Company v. Carl Anderson, £6 12s, costs £1 3s 6d; Burman and Stott v. Richardson and 00., £2, costs 10s; Auisebrook and Co. v. William Jounnax, £9 11s 10d, costs 8s; Wellington. Cooperative Dairy Company v. William Henry Drink water, £1 13s, costs 7s. In the following judgment summon oases defendants were ordered to pay forthwith :—Harcourt and Co. (agents for the creditor) v. J. R. Mathews, £4 2s; Annie Harris v. T. Smith, £7 13s sd. In M. Babich v. J. Nankiville, £7 Is 6d, no order was made. DEFENDED CASESStephen Harris v. F. N. Adams was a claim for £lO Is 3d, balance due for work done and material supplied by plaintiff in effecting alterations and repairs to the premises of defendant in Mercer street. Mr Gray appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Findlay for the defendant. Defendant disputed the claim on the ground that the payment was not included in the work of erecting the building, but was matter of a separate contract, which had been let to plaintiff for the construction of a verandah. His- Worship reserved judgment till the 10th inst. In the case of James Wright, cabinetmaker, and Ins wife, Mary Wright, v. Patrick Gill, New Zealand manager for the Peptochlor Company, a claim for £7l ss, money lent, Mr Findlay appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Levi for the defendant. Counsel for the defence said that his client ,yvas at present too ill to appear, and put in a medical certificate in support of his statement. He would admit indebtedness to the extent of £46 os, but asked for an adjournment of the case. —His Worship said be would adjourn the further hearing until 2.15 p.m. on Thursday. If defendant were not then present, he would require the personal attendance of his medical man to show satisfactory cause for further postponement. THURSDAY, AUGUST 10. (Before Dr A. McArthur, S.M.) CIVIL BUSINESS. In the following casese judgment was given for plaintiffs by default: —I*ildcs,

Mitchell and Co. v. David Martin, £2 11s lOd, costs £1 3s 6d ; William Hendry v. Edgar J. Clough, £4 4s, costs 15s; H. H. Smith v. Graham and Tetley* £ll 11s 3d, costs 15s 6d„; New Zealand Machinery Co. v. Graham and Tetley, £l3 13s sd, costs £1 10s 6d; Commercial Agency Co. m Edinnnd A. Gray, £l6 15s, costs £1 10s 6d; William Gran v. Charles Ellison, 5s 6d, costs 1 Is; Wellington Woollen Co. v. Charles L. Schmoll, £l3 17s 2d, costs £1 10s 6d; Henry V. Westbury v. Ernest Bennett, costs only, 8s: William S. Wallace V.. T. Mollison Smith, 18s 6d, costs 5». DEFENDED CASES. In John Wilson v. Augustine Rhzzi, Mr Weston appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hindmarsh for the defendant. Plaintiff claimed £95 14s for the erection of a cottage at Aiicetown for defendant. Under cross-examination by Mr Hindmarsh, plaintiff said he had also erected a house for defendant at a contract price of £3OO, which sum he had received from the mortgagee. That had nothing to do with the present case. He stopped building the cottage just before its completion because he had not been able to get any payment. Had not received one penny for the building of the cottage. Had not given a receipt for £2O as in full for the work done to the cottage. Would not swear, the signature to the undated receipt produced was not his, but it certainly, was not for any payment in connection with the cottage; neither could it refer to the former contract. Did not recollect seeing it before, and had serious opinions as to its genuineness. Augustine Rizsi said he had received the receipt through his agent in the matter, Mr Hyde. The case was adjourned till! the afternoon to admit of the attendance of Mr Hyde. On resuming, Mr 1 Weston said that as Mr Hyde was not present he would ask for an adjournment till the 17th inst. This was granted, the receipt for £2O being left in the custody of the Court. In James W right and Mary Wright v. Patrick Gill, a claim for £7l ss, money, lent (which was adjourned on-the Bth! inst. to admit of the appearance of defendant), Mr Stout appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Levi for the defence. Mr Levi called Dr McGavin, who sa-idi that defendant was still too- ill to appear. He was suffering from severe nervous prostration. In answer to a question from his Worship, Dr McGavin replied that defendant 4 had been drinking. His Worship said there was no certainty that the same state of things might not go on indefinitely. Judgment was then entered for plaintiffs by ccm sent for £66 ss, with £4 2s 6d costs, execution being stayed for a week. JUDGMENTS. In Richard M. Carroll v. James Rroeklehurst, a claim for the return of goods by defendant, or in lieu thereof for the payment of their value, £7 16s, his Worship said the case was one of the responsibility of a warehouseman for the loss of goods entrusted to his care. Warehousemen came within the general rule, and were bound only, to take common and reasonable care of things given to tbeiz’ care. They were not liable for thefts, unless these were occasioned by their want of proper care. They were not insurers Like common carriers, hut they were obliged', nevertheless, to exercise reasonable diligence in taking care of tilings deposited with them. In the present case, his Worship did not consider that leaving goods in a detached and often unlocked shed was an exercise of such diligence.- Defendant was, therefore, held responsible for the value of all the goods except a vice, about, which there was some doubt. Judgment would be for the plaintiff for the. return of all the other articles, or for* £6 Is, and £2 6s costs. Mr Kirkcaldie appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Von Haast for the defendant.

In Stephen Harris v. Fred. N. Adams, a claim for £lO Is sd, balance due for work done and materials supplied for the defendant by the plaintiff in effecting alterations and repairs of the premises of the defendant, his Worship reviewed the contentions of counsel with, regard to the performance of plumbing work about the verandah. There appeared to have been a genuine misunderstanding on that point. In the face of a direct conflict of evidence', the Court had to- fall back on anything which would assist it outside the evidence o-f the parties. This was to be found in the written specification, which included the main job and the verandah. In the specification of the verandah no plumbing work was detailed. In his Worship’s opinion, plaintiff tendered to build the verandah without plumbing work. Judgment would be for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with £4 Is costs. Mr Gray appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Findlay for the defendant.