MAGISTRATE'S COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8265, 30 October 1912, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

TUESDAY. OCTOBER 29.

(Before Dr A. McArthur, S.M.)

During Saturday last Thomas Conolly requested his male, Thomas Barry, to mind XI 10s for him. Probably induced by the dampness of tbo day, Barry became inwardly damp iuniseu—with Conchy's JCi 10S. Be also bought several bottles of liquor. Conolly had also got drunk and was lodged in the Lambton quay police cells, whither Barry was uicerwards taken. Not having thewuero* withal to bail bimsuii out, conolly was kept under lock and key until Monday morning. Barry determined that this should not bo his fare, lie handed the police authorities part of Conolly s Aids and was liberated ou bail, 'i'ho result of tho misuse of his mate's money was a complaint made by Conolly, and yesterday morning Barry was charged with stealing the X'2 10s. Ho was ordered to come up for sentence when calico upon.

WORKING OF A MILKING machine.

A claim for two insialuiontfi of rent of an X..K.G. milidng prune was mace by J. 13. iuacßwau ana 00., BUI., of WoiUngKJU, against W. K. Uoodnck, farmer* oi xeiiduig. , , . Blaiiiuns sued for 5s 3d, being two hire of «£«Q ©ach, alleged to bo due uuuor an agreement mad© on January 31st, 1912. Tne sum of Ml 5s 3d lor iiro insurance piomium paid by tno plaintiffs lor the deieudant. and tor which it was contended the defendant was liable under the agreement, to coyer any damage which might be caused tho machine by fire, was also claimed. A funnier claim for A 3 18s 5d tor tne supply of accessories was made. It was admitted that A2 16s 9d of this latter amount was duo. also the insurance. in a countoi claim hlod by tho deism daut, tho latter slated that prior to, and at the time of the negotiations between plaintiffs and himself tor the hire of the muffing machine, plaintiffs represented tiiat tney would supply a macnuio capable of thoroughly muting his herd of cows. By letters dated .December 20 th, 1911, April 2nd, 15th, and 19th of the present year, plaintiffs guaranteed to put the machine into proper order, but tailed to do so. On or anout i* ebruary 2nd, 1912, ho paid to tho plaintiffs tho sum of AGO as a deposit upon the machine. which failed lo perform its work, tiaintiffs repeatedly sent experts and mechanics to his farm to endeavor to put tne machine into working order, nut without avail. Through the failure of the machine to milk lus cows the effect on the latter was to dry them off wym-al mouths earlier than usual, thereby causing him considerable monetary loseDeleuuant claimed to tecover trom tho plaintiffs (a), tho sum of AGO deposit, and (b), the sum of AIOO as special damages lor alleged breach of warranty, being at tho rate of A2 loss on each of fifty cows. In the alternative Goodrich claimed Al6O for general damages. Mr F. G. Dalziell appeared tor the plaintiffs, and Mr T. N. llolmden for the d °Aftor U a partial hearing the case was adjourned until this afternoon. UNDEFENDED CASES.

Judgment by default was given fot plaintiff in the toUowms cases:—William Lingard and Co. v. C. il. Rains, jjl. and costs 8s; Rosenberg and Co. v. KinMt 13. Wallis, ii l 3s, and ss; New Zealand State Guaranteed Advances Office v. W. J. Drake and C. L. Drake, 4-_>3 8s; Frederick E. Goodey v. John Ferguson, ill Cs. and ss; Bteveus ami Co. v. the Shannon Land and bawnulline Co.. JSB 9 s . and Jtl 3s; Frost and F’roU v. Mrs Mary Pope, JA 10s, and I U3 . John William McEwan v. Ivo Greer, Os 2d, and ss; Hermann Heimann v G. Wright, 14s od, and ss; same v. Andrew Anderson, JU 14a Bd, and 7s; the Crown v. Alphonse William Hensley. £4 (felOd, and 12s; the Wellington PubRshteg Co. v. William Skipworth, ss, and ss; Edwin Arnold v. W. Hargreaves. 17a Gd. and ss; James Smith. Ltd. i. Tokn Mason. X 3 7a 6d, and 10s; and C. Smith, Ltd. v. John Searle, 19s 3d, and 7s- ________.