MAGISTRATE'S COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7078, 16 March 1910, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

TUESDAY, MARCH 15. (Before Mr W. R. Haselden, S.M.) NON-ALCOHOLIC ALE. Reserved judgment was delivered in tho case Thomson, Lewis and Co., cordial .manufacturers (Mr Von Haast), v. A. D. Kennedy and Co., wine merchants (Mr "Ward), a claim for £36 3s ■sd for services in connection with the 'breaking down and bottling of a consignment of non-alcoholic concentrate. (Plaintiffs claimed , that to produce a •marketable beverage they had been compelled to bottle in the proportion of two parts water to one of concentrate instead of in the proportion of three to one as originally specified. Defendants disputed the right of plaintiffs to -use a stronger dilution and Icounter-clatmed fot liquor short supplied. His "Worship held that the instructionls in bottling were not labsolnto, and there was nothing to. Bay that plaintiffs must adhere strictly to the instructions. . Judgment would be for plaintiffs on the claim, and also on. tho counter-claim 'for £35 4s Id. Costs £4 18s were allowed. ADVERTISING DISPUTE. Judgment for plaintiffs for the amount claimed (£0), and costs £3 4s, was entcrotl in the case Trade Auxiliarv Company of New Zealand, Ltd., v. E. Reynolds and Co.. Ltd. Tho defendants had claimed that they had contracted to advertise with the plaintiffs for one year only, but tho evidence- showed, that payment had been imado for a period covering eighteen [months. The claim was for a further term. His Worship in giving judgment did not review tho case. Security for|appeal was fixed at £3 4s. Mr Dunn was for plaintiffs and Mr Bell for defendants. DAMAGED TN TRANSIT. The Shaw,' Savill and Albion Company, Ltd., were defendants in a.caso in which Sanders Brothers, contractors, claimed tho sum of £29 16s 2d, representing the value of five slabs of granite shipped to them on' board a vessel owned by the company and alleged to have been, owing to careless ■handling, so damaged 1 in transit as to have been rendered useless, together •with tho cost of cabling for a replace consignment, and an annount (£6 10s 6d) claimed by tho Harbour Board for storage. Mr Blair appeared for the claimants and Mr Myers for defendants. Respecting the claim for stor-

age Mr Myers submitted that it was not tho shipping company but the Harbour Board which, had refused to give the delivery of the broken granite, (the board observing a rule that no goods should bo delivered without a clean receipt. Judgment was reserved. UNDEFENDED OASES. Judgment for plaintiff by default was on tared up in each of tho following cases:—New Zeaiand Fruit and Produce Co., Ltd., v. Leonard Elliott, £2 12s, costs 12s; J. AV. Hoare and Co. v. Alphonsus Rush, £2O 17s Id, costs' £2 14s; Joseph Nathan and Co., Ltd., v. George W. Gray, £4l 18s Bd, costs £2 14s; Wellington.' City Council v. Albert Cooper and Charles William Cooper, £59 6s sd, costs £1 12s; A. D. Kennedy and Henry W. Wilkuis v. George Sayer, £3 4s, costs ss; same v. Joseph {Williams, £3 Bs, costs ss; same v. Charles Bentley, £$ 10s, costs ss; G. R: Rogers v. Henrs Oliver, £l, costs ss; D. and J. Ritchie tv Abraham Brown, : £2-10s, costs lis; sanio v. William Haigh/ £1 17s, cost* 7s; Donald E. Robertson, v. Robert Leonard 17s, costs ss; tho Palace Com« pany, Ltd., v. Samuel Perth McNahs £6 -13 s, costs £1 3s Gd; A. Adams v. William P. Leitz, £8 3s 4d. costs £1 4s 6d; Eorde and Co. v. Frederick W. Anthony, £3 19s 6d, costs 10s; R. an* E. Tingey and 1 Co., Ltd., ■ v . CoweH Bros.. £l2 10s 9d, costs £1 10s 6d; Joseph Ormond v. Richard Herria DaJhonse, £1 6s sd, costs 13s; A. Adams v. • George McEwen, £l2 17s sd, costs £1 10s 6d. In the judgment summons case Anna Eliza Reynolds v. Walter Reynolds, defendant Was ordered to pay £3 7s 3d on or before April 12th, in default one month's imprisonment.