MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23055, 4 December 1936, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thursday, December 3 (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASE Judgment was given for the plaintiff in the following undefended case: —Arthur Frederick Mackway Jones v. Henry R. Jarvis Webster (Motueka), claim £ls lis Id, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 3s). RESERVED JUDGMENT DELIVERED Judgment was delivered in the case in which H. S. Bingham and Co. claimed from Horatio Murdoch Mackay the sum of £l9 15s 6d for work done at the defendant's residence, including laying a terrazzo floor in the bathroom and a terrazzo sink. The defendant counterclaimed for the sum of £73 17s 7d, for depreciation on the value of carpets and furniture caused by terrazzo dust, expenses entailed in cleaning the house, and general damages.—The magistrate said that the first question as regards the claim was whether the plaintiff agreed to give a 10 per cent, discount. The defendant had not satisfied him that a direct allowance of 10 per cent, discount was to be made to him. With regard to the other small item of 18s, which had arisen through a misunderstanding between Homer and Bingham, it had not been shown that Bingham was responsible for this. Judgment was awarded the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs (£1 10s), solicitor's fee (£2 12s), and witnesses' expenses (£2 2s). In regard to the counter-claim, the magistrate said that at the hearing he had indicated that the plaintiff firm was responsible for not taking adequate steps to prevent- the escape of the dust arising from the terrazzzo grinding in the bathroom After careful consideration of the evidence he was satisfied that the realities of the position were to be deduced from the evidence of Dr R. Gardner and Mr C. J. Hayward and that the depreciation to the carpets was trifling. Mac Kay was entitled to the sums paid for cleaning, £2 10s for window cleaning, and £3 to the charwoman. An allowance of £5 he considered sufficient for the other items claimed.—Judgment, amounting to £lO 10s on the counter-claim was given in favour of Mac Kay with, costs (£1 12s), solicitor's fee (£2 2s), and witnesses' expenses (£5 17s). CLAIM-FOR DAMAGES As the result of a collision between a car driven by Inspector M'Dowell and a car driven by William John Finch at East Taieri on September 16, 1935, Finch was proceeded against on a claim for £33 14s, the cost of repairs to the inspector's car. Mr W. D. Taylor appeared for the plaintiff and Mr E. J. Anderson for the defendant.—Mr Taylor explained that the defendant had been charged in the Mosgiel Court with negligent driving, but the charge had been dismissed. The reason for the delay in bringing the civil action was that the Public Works Department had been under the impression that the South Island Motor Union had accepted responsibility The position was that Inspector M'Dowell had been travelling north along the Main South road near East Taieri, when he noticed a truck travelling towards him near the centre of the road. A car driven by the defendant was following the truck and it swung out of line to pass the lorry. The defendant's car, he submitted, was on the wrong side of the road, and as a result a collision occurred between his car and the inspector's vehicle. Some facts of the case had not been brought out by the police at the Mosgiel Court.—For the defence, Mr Anderson held that had the driver of the lorry moved his vehicle over on the road when the defendant sounded his horn, Finch would have been able to pass easily. Counsel submitted that road courtesy required the lorry to move over and allow Finch's passing movement to be completed.—After hearing lengthy evidence by witnesses for both plaintiff and defendant, the magistrate said he was not impressed with a great deal of the evidence for the defence. Judgment would be for the amQunt claimed, with costs (£2 6s), solicitor's fee (£4 3s), and witnesses' expenses (£1 8s).