MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21363, 17 June 1931, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, June 16. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for tne plaintiffs in the following cases:—Janies Alanu and Co. v. Harold James (Christchurch), claim £4 15s, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 4s 6d); F. and R. Woods, LC , v. A. M'Lean, claim £2 3s, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 6s 6d); T. W'. Dicuson v. S. B. Kelly, claim £3 os, amount of account stated, with costs (£1 5s 6d); K. B. Denniston and Co. v. Dunn Bros. (KiversdaleJ, claim £l4 8s od, tor goods'supplied, with costs (£4 9s); Carter, Desmoulins, Ltd. (in liquidation), v. L. E. Hornbrook (Mosgiel), claim £l6 6s 4d, for goods supplied, with costs (£3 15s); H. Vvimpeuuy v. Robert Morrison (Broad Bay), claim £? 2s 3d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 12s 6d); Ford Motors (Dunedin), Ltd., v. Beatrice G. Marsh, claim 15s, amount due in respect of accident claim, with costs (9s); Nelson and Beveridge v. Wesley J. Anderson (Henley), claim 18s 9d, for goods supplied, with costs (17s); Dunedin Brewery and Wilson Malt Extract Co., Ltd., v. M. T. Carroll (Franktou), claim £2 5s 3d, for goods supplied, with costs (11s); Reliable Loan and Investment Corporation, Ltd., v. John Jackson, claim £ll 4s, for money lent and interest, with costs (£2 14s); Jago, Biggs, Ltd., v. William John Meuary (Horopito), claim £8 15s, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 12s 6d); Alexander Boag v. J. Saunders (Mosgiei), claim 16s 6d, for garaging fees, with costs (8s); Reddell’s, Ltd., v. Alexander Pyper (Omakau), claim £l3 10s, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 18s); Berry and Barton v. G. Nash (Ravensbourne), claim £lO 19s, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 17s); Eva Winifred Lancaster v. Joseph Hanning (Grove Bush), claim £2 Os 6d, for maintenance in Stafford Hos pital, with costs (£1 5s 6d). COAL SUPPLY DISPUTED.

The Westport Coal Co., Ltd., claimed from Herbert Anscombe (Clyde), £4 6s Bd, the amount alleged to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff for coal supplied.—Mr H. E. Barrowclough ap neared for the plaintiff company, and Mr E. J. Anderson for the defendant.— Mr Barrowclough stated that the defendant had ordered six tons of coal from the plaintiff company, for which he paid. The trucks were loaded at Ohai and sent to Clyde, but, as the Railway Department insisted on the trucks being fully loaded, 7 tons I3cwt of coal were actually forwarded to the defendant. Anscombe accepted delivery of the full amount, and signed for it, as was shown by the Railways Department’s records. He was also charged Is each for 33 sacks. He paid £7 5s 6d for six tons of coal, which he considered was all he had received, and he refused to pay for the sacks, which he maintained were not included in the quote. The company therefore claimed for the price of 1 ton 13cwt of coal and 33 sacks, although it was willing to deduct 33s from the amount alleged to be owing if the sacks were returned, —Record of the defendant's signature for receipt of the coal was produced by Robert Watkins, a clerk on the Railways Department.—James Duncan Cameron, manager of the plaintiff company’s depot, gave evidence as to the transaction, and stated that it had always been the company’s practice to charge for sacks. When the defendant’s coal was to be forwarded, an eight-ton truck was the only one available, and the truck was therefore fully loaded, as the defendant would have had to pay freightage on the capacity of the truck irrespective of its load.—The defendant in evidence stated that there was no mention of an extra charge for the sacks when he ordered the coal. He was unable to determine the weight of coal he had received, but there appeared to be the same amount in the truck as ou previous occasions when he had ordered six tons. —At this stage the defendant mentioned that he was prepared to return the sacks to the company, and Mr Barrowclough intimated that if this were done the company would deduct the amount charged for them, and, would pay freight from Clyde to Dunedin.—The claim for the cost of the sacks was therefore withdrawn, and his Worship said that he was satisfied that the plaintiff company was entitled to succeed on the balance of the claim. He intimated that he would give judgment for the plaintiff company, and at the request of the parties the case was adjourned sine die to allow them to come to an arrangement.