MAGISTRATE’S COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6870, 14 July 1909, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY. JULY 13. POLICE CASES. (Before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M.) James Reynolds, on a charge of assaulting Frank Johnson, to which ho pleadetl not guilty, was remanded until Monday next. Bail was allowed in tlip accused’s own bond of £4O, with two sureties of £2O each. For drunkenness, Clara Brannigan was fined ss, in default , forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. Two first-offend-ers were also fined ss, in default twenty-four hours. CIVIL BUSINESS. (Before Dr A. McArthur, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. His Worship entered up judgment for tho plaintiff by default in each of the following undefended cases : —Edward Collie v. Frank Hedgman, £25 4s Bd, costs £3 2s; Wellington City Corporation’v. John White Thompson, £2 X7s lOd, costs 7s; James Smith and Sons v. Hector Nicol, £lO 6s 3d, costs 15s; United Farmers’ Cooperative Association, Ltd., v. Frederick Benge, £1 11s 9d, costs sa; Laery and Co., Ltd., v. Mrs Elizabeth Riteon, £4O 7s ’9d, costs £2 14s; Whitcombs and Tombs, Ltd., v. Bonithon Petroleum Company, Ltd., £8 12s 6d, costs £1 3s 6d ;’ William Patrick Healey v. William Rhodes, 14s .6d, costs 5s ; Abraham and Williams, Ltd., v. George Andrew, senr., £2 12s 6d, costs 10s; South Pacific Mortgage and Deposit Company, Ltd., v. Robert Corson and Michael Dalton, £l6 6s, costs £1 11s 6d (a third defendant confessed judgment for the amount); New Zealand Fruit and Produce Company, Ltd., v. Sam Loong, £l7 10s 2d, costs,£l.los 6d; Albert K. Marin v. George Foek, 7s 6d, costs ss. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

In the judgment summons case of .Harrowby and Son v. John Carso Arbucklo, a debt ,of £7 13s, the debtor hvas ordered to pay -on or before July |27tU, in default seven days’ imprison■ment. Thomas O’Neill was ordered to pay forthwith to the Gear Meat Preserving and Freezing Company of New Zealand, the; sum of £3 10s 3d, in default three days’ imprisonment; the I'warrant to bo suspended so long as 6s a week is paid off the amount. In the case of Hedley Vicars Uren v. George Pei'kinson, a debt of £5 !lSs 3d. the debtor was ordered to pay on or boforo July 27th, in default seven days’ imprisonment. Michael Hogan was ordered to pay to J. H. Geddes, on or before July 27th, the sum of £4 14s, in default three days’ imprisonment. DEFENDED CASES; CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. The case of Lucy Anna Butts (Mr D. M. Findlay) v. Benjamin Semeloff

(Hr Leri), which had been before the Court for several days, was Concluded. The parties ate neighbouring pro■•perty Owners at. Newtown. The piainjtiff alleged that the defendant entered bn to her land, cut down certain trees, jand ipade a drain, causing damage, Tor which she claimed £2O. The defendant counter-claimed for £SO, stating that the plaintiff had allowed water to run from her land on to his. Judgment was reserved. (Before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.'M.) JUDGMENT FOE DEFENDANT. The cost of making ah inventory ot the furniture in a boardinghouse was tlie basis of a claim for £2 2s, brought by William John Morton (Mr A. H. Barnett) against John Cleary (Mr F. Ward). The plaintiff stated that at the defendant’s request he iliade an inventory of the furniture in a boardinghouse, which the defendant proposed to purchase through him. , The defence was that the plaintiff, as agent for the house, should supply a list of the furniture. Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs, INSUFFICIENT SECURITY. .The balance of ‘ principal and interest dyer 'security on a Ipan Wat sued for by the Te Ate Leah DisCoUnt and InveSt'nie'nt GoSliiahyj Ltd., ,in a case againfct ..Frederick William Peet and (Charles Wadley. . . . y ; Evidence called by Mr Bolton, for the plaintiff company, was to the effect that the defendant Peet failing to pay instalments on the loan, and his surety, the defendant Wadley, declining to liquidate the debt, -the

plaintiff company sold up the security, which failed to realise the amount of the loan, with interest, etc., by £sl ISs.

Mr Fitzg-ibbon, on behalf of the defendant Wadley, said that the latter, who was only surety in tho deed, had not been given due notice by the plaintiff company as to Peet’s defaulting. Any action brought should bo an action for damages for breach of covenant.

His Worship entered up judgment for the plaintiff company, with costs, £5 16s, against the defendant Wadley, and judgment by consent against the defendant Peet, with costs, £4 Os 6d. RESERVED JUDGMENT. ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT His Worship Dr McArthur delivered his reserved judgment in the case of George Morris (Mr Levi) v. the Fresh Food and Ice Company (Mr Johnston), a claim for £IOO damages, for alleged breach of agreement. The plaintiff is a milk-vendor, carrying on business in Riddiford street, and tho defendant company is an incorporated company supplying milk to retail milk-vendors in the city. The parties entered into an agreement, by which the company was bound not to compete against the plaintiff in the supply of milk to private houses. It was alleged by the plaintiff that during the continuance of the agreement, tho defendant, under the name of tho Manawatu Milk Supply Company, in breach of the agreement, competed against the plaintiff in the supply of milic to private houses in Wellington. The defendant therefore claimed £IOO damages. His Worship considered that the particular agreement entered into between the plaintiff and tho defendant company was in pursuance of a general agreement between certain retail milk-vendors, of which the plaintiff was one, and tho defendant company. In his opinion, tho plaintiff must fail on his jiarticular agreement alone for tho following reasons;—Not only did tho plaintiff not show that the defendant company was tho Manawatu Milk Supply Company, but the evidence was clear that tho latter company was a little venture of the defendant’s factory manager. Even then no competition was shown, but only a supply of a little humanised milk, which the plaintiff did not seem to bother about. The fact that the defendant company kept the books of the Manawatu Milk Supply Company was not evidence that it was carrying on business ‘‘either in its own name or that of any other person.” Judgment was for the -defendant company, with costs, £5. ■