MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21300, 2 April 1931, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Wednesday, April 1. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) CLAIM FOR CABLE. Frederick Joseph O’Neill (carrying on business under the name of the New Zealand Electrical Equipment Company) v. James A. Thomson (Port Chalmers), claim £4l 0s 6d, in respect of certain goods.—Mr J. B. Thomson for the plaintiff; Mr W. D. Taylor for the defendant. The hearing of this case was resumed.—The defence was that O’Neill ostensibly allowed one Buchanan to hold himself out as his (O’Neill’s) agent, and that any stranger dealing with Buchanan would naturally assume him to be O’Neill’s agent since he had free access to the premises. The defendant dealt with Buchanan bona fide and paid him for the goods, and was now asked to pay again.— After evidence, his Worship reserved his decision. CLAIM AGAINST MOTORIST. Arthur Leslie Shield proceeded against Arthur Grant Sherriff on a claim for £4O 3s 6d as damages arising out of a collision between a motor van negligently driven by an employee of the defendant, and the plaintiff’s motor cycle.—Mr D Solomon appeared for the plaintiff and Mr A. W. Buchler for the defendant.—• The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff was driving his motor cycle up Claremont street, Dunottar, at a reasonable speed and on the correct side of the road, when a motor van driven by Arthur M. Sherriff, an employee of the defendant, collided with him. As a result the plaintiff’s motor cycle was badly damaged, and his ovei’coat was torn. The plaintiff therefore claimed £3O, the cost of repairs to the motor cycle, £4 10s, the cost of repairs to his overcoat, 7s 6d, the amount charged for cartage of his machine to a garage, and £5 as general damages—a total of £4O 3s 6d.—Mr Solomon pointed out that the defendant had paid £2O into court, and the main point at issue was the amount of damages that should be allowed. —Mr Buchler said that the defendant would admit that the cost of repairs to the cycle would be £3O, but he maintained that the value of the machine prior to the accident was not I more than £ls, and it was on this, he submitted that the claim should be based. —Expert evidence was heard as to the work done on the cycle and its value before the accident, and the value of the overcoat before and after being repaired, I one witness stating that it would be possible for the defendant to obtain a machine similar to his old one for about | £lB. —His Worship said that it seemed j from the evidence that the defendant | could obtain a machine equal in value ! to hie old one for £2O, and the amount recoverable in respect to the coat would be £2 2s 6d. In addition, the plaintiff was entitled to the claims for cartage and general damages. Judgment would therefore be given for £7 10s additional to the amount already paid into court with costs (10s), witnesses’ expenses (£1 4s), and solicitor’s fee (£1 Is).