DUNEDIN S.M. COURT. Tuesday, September 14.

Otago Witness, Volume 06, Issue 2899, 6 October 1909, Page 41

DUNEDIN S.M. COURT. Tuesday, September 14.

(Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment wa* given for plaintiffs by I default, in the following undefended cases. ' —John Helm (Mr W. D. Stewart v. E. Horn (Waitotara), claim £2 18s 6d, for ront and expenses (costs 18s); D.I.C. (Mr Moore) v. Thos. R. Johnston (Waiareka Junction), claim £2 7s Bd, goods sold and delivered (costs lls) ; Frederick Poiwhele I Godfrey (Mr Statham) v. Daniel Breen,' i claim 16s, for costs; N.Z. Tablet Company v. Geo. H. Frank (Groymouth), claim £5, for subscriptions 'costs ss) ; Donald Reid and Co. (Mr Statham) v. Chas. Edwin Griffin (Macraes Flat), claim £11 ss, dishonoured cheque (costs. £2 10s 6d) ; William ; Watson (Mr C. J. Payne) v. Frank G. Williams (Oamaru). claim £4 13s, on account stated (costs 10s). Judgment Summonses. — Edward John i Bryamt v. Thos. Bush King, claim £6 Bs, [ on a judgment summons. — Defendant did not appear, and an order was made for the payment of the full amount, with costs (8s). on or before 21st inst. in default, 14 days' imprisonment. William Cockerill (Mr Moore) v. Andrew W. Bremner, claim £1 Is on a judgment summons. — Defendant ©aid the debt was contracted during his partnership with another man. He (defendant) was a lamplighter in receipt of £2 8s per week. He paid 12s for rent and 15s : for a nurse for his wife, who was subject Ito fits. He had three young children. — Mr Moore said he would not ask for an order in face of the evidence, but he would * like defendant's statements checked. — The I case was dismissed. Breaches of Awards. — J.> Hollows (Inspector of Awards) v. Matthew Morton, claim ■ j £2 penalty for 'breach^ of Plumbers' and Gasfitters' Award. — Mr Hollows said the : facts of bhe case were that defendant was , employed as a journeyman plumber by William Blagdon, and accepted wages at the rate of Is per hour instead of Is 3d per hour, as laid down by the provisions jof the award. Defendant told TBlagdon : he had an under-rate permit. The case was , brought principally to remind workers of their duty. — Defendant said he told Blag1 don he would gpt a permit, not that he i had one. — His Worship said he thought it was the duty of employers to see permits of this nature JEor themselves. Defendant would be fined 5s and costs (Is). Inspector of Awards v. Ardrew Nelson (Mr Wilfkinson), claim. £10. penal+y for breach of ' the Dunedin Furniture Trades Award, in Lhat during the period from November, 1907. to July, 1909. he Sydney Chadwick as an apprentice and did fail to indenture him to the trade, contrary to the provisions of clause 5 of the aforesaid award. — Mr Wilkinson said the defence was a peculiar one. Defendant had tried to gret boys, but could not get therii. The work wa« too monotonous. The award recognised three kinds of persons — journeymen, improvers, and apprentices. Defendant, could ' not get apprentices— no boy would take uj? > the work. Chadwick had started work at £1 a week, and now received £1 7s 6d a week. The- policy of the law was that apprentices should be under a g e^_2l years. Chadwick was- over that age. an-d owin* to his physique he could not be employed anywhere else in the trade. Defendant only made chairs, and the only tools ueed were a glue-pot and a hammer. Machinery did the rest. — Mr Hollows (Inspector of Awards) submitted that -a chairmaker came within the provisions of the award. — Sydney. A. Chadwick said he considered that a boy would be wasting his time if he were indentured. The work was j monotonous, and a boy could easily learn all that was necessary in three months. Witness said he was 25 years of age.—Evidence was given by Albert J. Butterfield and Andrew Nekon.— His Worship held that th*>re had been no breach, Chadabeolutply refused to become apprenticed to the tra<l(>. Of course defendant's proper plan would have been to dismiss him or to pay him journeyman's wages, and an action might possibly be brought asrainst him on that, score. He thought Mr Justice Sim's decision in the case Inspector of Awards v. M'Cracken applied to the case, which would be dismissed.

Thttrsdat, Septemeeb 16. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson. S.M.) Judgment for plaintiff was givon in the following undefended cases:— D.l.C. (Mr Moore) v. John Brackeniridge, claim £5 lie 7d, for goods supplied, with coats (£1 3s 6d) ; the Diamond Brand Chemical Company (Mr Finch) v. Reilly- . Curran (Oamaru), claim 14s 3d, for goods supplied, with costs (lls) ; Johnston, Sons, and Co. (ilr Scantlebury) v. Frederick Dale (Timaru), claim £l 7s 4d, books supplied, with costs (&) ; same v. Walter Ch»ri«s dark (CI»T-Lstci l Txr-<i), claim £2 15s, for books sold, with cost§ (15s); ea.mfe V. Frank Ferguson (Waikawa), ckwm £2 Bs, for books sold, witjh costs (10s) ; sjrae v. Jaire-j Mitchell (Taranaki), ciaim £4 14s od, for books cold, with costs (10s) ; same v. David MUler iDevonport), claim £1 Bs, for books cold, with costs (7s) : same v. Edward Adams (Auckland), claim £2 Bs, for books sold, with costs (10s) : James Methven (Mr Calla-n) v. Ellen Meyer (Honley), claim £11 12s 6d, due on dishonoured promissory -note, with costs (£1 IPs 6d) : Binsr, Harris, and Co. (Mr J. S. Sinclair) v James G. M'lvor (Otautou), claim £23 19s 4d, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 14*): J. and J. Arthur (Mr Irwin) v. Pati-ick Flynn (Dunback), claim £3 ss, for Broods supplied, with costs (17s) ; same v. Patrick Flynn (Dunback), claim £2 Is, for a-cods supplied, wit'n costs (17s) ; Marshall's Proprietary, Ltd. (Mr Monro), v. N. Bur.sress (Gieborne). claim £11 5s 6d, for goods supw-lied, with costs (£1 10s 6d) : Butterworth Brcs. v. A. S Streeter and Co. (Auckland), claim £49 19s 6d, on a promisory mote, with coats (£3 8s) ; Olago Fa.rm«r6' Co-operative Association v. Jas. Fnhey, claim £5 16s lOd. for aroods supplied, with costs (£1 5« 6d) : the Phoenix Company. Ltd. (Mr E. Johnston) v. Harold Evans (Oamaru), claim £4- 17s Sd, for sroods sunpKed, with costs (s<o : John Huarh'es (Mr Moore) v. John M?.th^-son. (Ettrick*. claim £9 lls Bd. for goods and money lent, with costs (£1 lls 6d).

Tuesday, September 21

(Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.)

•Tudgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases: — Hondai Lanka Tea Company v. William Niven (Bluff), claim 12s 6d, goods supplied, and costs (ss) ; same v. H. J. M'Grath (Oamaru), claim £1 13s 4d, goods supplied,

and costs (ss) ; same v. John Beggie (Oamaru), claim £1 10s, and costs (ss) ; same v. Joseph Jones (Dunedin), claim 6s Bd, for goods supplied, and costs (ss) ; same v. Framk Birchali (Dunedin), claim 7s 6d, goods supplied, and costs (ss); D.1.0. v. George Taylor (North InvereaTgill) , claim £31 15s 3d, goods supplied, and costs (£2 14s) ; Thomson, Bridger and Co. v. John M'Nair (Duntroon), claim £15 15s 3d, goods supplied and dishonoured cheque, and costs (£1 18s 6d) ; Lilly Bros. v. Edwin H. Sinoock, claim £3 ss, goods supplied, and costs (10s); Johnston, Sons, and Co. v. Lucian Gler (Rangiora), claim £1 15s, balance due on Bible, and' costs (ss) ; Robert Harbison v. E. H. Horin (Dunedin), claim £5 6s lid, milk supplied, and costs (£1 lls 6d) ; Nimmo and Blair v. Win. Burgoyne (Awanui North), claim £1 5s 4d, for goods and interest thereon, and costs (10s). A CLAIM FOE DAMAGES. Frederick Hall, John Wilkie, John Lamb Wilkie, and David Reid Wilkie (Mosgiel), trading as Wilkie and Co., proceeded against the- National Electrical end Engineering Company (Ltd.), claiming- £198 damages under an alleged breach of warranty.—Mr H. D. Bedford appeared for plaantiffs, and Mr W. C. MacG-regor for defendants. The statement of claim set forth that in the month of November, 1908, the defendant agreed to sell and erect, and the plaintiffs agreed to purchase for. ' the " sum of £305 lls, an , electric plant consisting of one 50 h.p. motor, -with oil insulated transformers for driving the machinery of the plaintifiTs flourmill at Mosgiel. The,plaintiffs paid to the /defendant the sum of £305 lls. . At the. time of making the said agreement the plaintiffs made known to the defendant the particular purpose for which, the plant was required, and relied on defendant's iikill and judgment that the said plant was reasonably fit for such purpose. The defendant warranted that .the said transformers would not require any attention for 12 months after erection, and agreed to repair absolutely at its own cost any breakdown ii» the transformers whioh occurred m the six months immediately succeedingtheir erection. On January 15, 1909, the plant was installed, and on May 14, 1909, the transformers burnt out, thereby stopping the operations of the plaintiffs' flourmill., Immediately upon this occurring, the •plaintiffs requested the defendant to repair the damage done, but this the defendant refused to do. It was claimed by" plaintiffs that the burning out of the transformers was due to defective manufacture and installation, and that, in consequence of the burn out, the mill was shut down on Alay 15, 16, and 17, while . temporary transformers were being put in. The niiii ran for a period of nine weeks witih the temporary transformers, and in order, that this might be done 't had been necessary to engage an extra man. On July 17 the mill was aigein shut down, and permanent transformers were installed. The plaintiffs claimed £198 as damages, the sum being made up as follows: Loss on transformers, i £145; four days' stoppage of the mill at £7 a day, £28; wages paid extra workman for nine weeks, at £2 a^week, £18 j cost of installing temporary and permanent new transformers, £7. , i Evidence having been given for the plaintiff, I Mr MacGregor, in defence, said that the case involved an alleged breach of warranty. There had been a verbal contract made for the supply of an electrical plant, and this was put into writing by plaintiffs, who sent : .<b to defendant company, by which it was accepted. This letter, dated September 18, was produced, and the contract therein spoke for itself. It stipulated that the plant was to be ereoted complete so as to run the flourmill, and handed over in good running order, in such condition as to satisfy the Fire Underwriters' Association. This was the whole of the contract, and it was obvious that once a contract was reduced to writing it could not be altered, varied, or extended by any verbal evidence offered. Leaving the matter of the eon'tracfc quite out of the question, plaintiffs had failed to show that the injury to the transformers was due to any carelessness on the part of the defendants, or to any manufacturing fault. The absurd and monstrous suggestion that defendant had guaranteed to repair any damage that might occur in six months was altogether incredible. Any business man who (rave such a guarantee would be out of business iti a very short time. The real test lay in that reference to the Fire Underwriters' Association in plaintiffs' letter. Before plaintiffs could succeed, they must show that defendant company had in any way broken its contract, and he submitted that the plaintiffs had certainly failed to do this. However, in a typewritten document, dated February, 1908, defendant had, under certain conditions, offered to guarantee its motor for six I months, and as- it knew the nature of its machinery, and had faith in its installation, iifc was prepared to regard the machinery (motor and transformers} aoff supplied to Wilkies', as being bound by such a guarantee, and to stand by his Worship's finding. The defendant, however, i argued that no manufacturing faults had been shown to exist. He submitted that there was no case to answer. His Worship said he would like to hear evidence. He thought there was a case to answer. Evidence was given by Eustace William Acland, managing director of the defendant company; Jones (foreman at the National Electrical Company's works), E. E. Stark (city electrical engineer), and M'Kittrick (general manager for Australasia of the National Electrical and Engineering Company). The case haying commenced at 11.30 a.m., continued, with two short adjournments, until 10.30 p.m., when his fWorship, having heard counsel for plaintiffs and defendants, . reserved his decision. I

Tuesday, September 28.

(Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Undefended Cases.— Judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default in the following cases : — Samuel Jarvis (Mr Irwin) v. Archie Leckie (Wellington), claim £2, balance cfcue on goods supplied, and costs (10s) ; Samu-el Jarvis (Mr Irwin) v. Owen Hughes, claim £1 16s, balance due on poods supplied, and costs (ss); James R. Briggs (Mr Ewing) v- Robert K. Bain, (Wyndham), claim £3, balance due on dishonoured cheque, and costs (10s) ; Percy B. Courtis (Mr P. Thomson) v. John O'Neil, claim £12 19s 6d, amount of dishonoured promiseorv note, and coats (£1 10s 6d); Johnston, Sons, and Co. (Mr Scantlebury) v. William Edwards Giaborne), claim £1 12s. 6d, balance due on

f goods sold and delivered, ftnd costs (ss) ;" Johnston, Sons, and Co. (Mr Scantlebury) v. John Scott Weir (Spreydon), claim £4 14s 6d. books sold and delivered, and costs (10s); Johnston, Sons, and Co. (Mr Seanlebury) v. Ernest William Lowden, blacksmith (Ralfour), claim £4 14s 6d, bcoks sold and delivered, and costs (£1) ; F- J. Sullivan (Mr Finch) v. D. W. Gray (Duntroon). claim £4 15s Bd, for goods sold and delivered, and costs (16s) ; Charles E. Statham (Mr Wilkinson) v. A. C- Mlntyre - (Mosgiel), claim £5 7s lid, for services rendered by him as solicitor, and costs (£1 5s 6d). Judgment Order. — In the case A. . G-. Tftrrv (Mr Tonkinson) v. G. A. Silver, i claim £1 2s, and costs (7s), on judgmenb . given, an order was made for th& paymebfc of the sum before tho sth of October, with. the alternative of 48 hours' imprisonment. Renting a Boxing Saloon.— T. E. Shiel and Co. v. J. Dreaver and S. M'Donald!— Claim £3 15s, balance due for rent— M'Donald did not appear, and Dreaver was represented by Mr Scurr. Mr Scantlebury appeared for plaintiff.— Mr Scantlebury appeared for the plaintiff. — His Worship said that on the evidence he was bound to give judgments , for the plaintiffs. — Judgment was accord1 in^ly given for £3 7s 6d (7s 6d being ■ allowed by plaintiffs owing to an error in. | the statement), and costs (15s 8d). } A Rabbit Trapper's Difficulty.— Francis i Joseph . Sullivan v. Robert Todd, Kai- . tangata. — Claim £3 15s 2d, goods sup- ; plied and delivered.— Defendaait, who appeared for himself, said he owed something, but dad not *hink it was co much. — Charles William Harris, manager for MrSullivan, gave detailed evidence as to the supplying of goocb and the render-ing of account* sales, producing the books of tho ' firm in evidence — The Magistrate held that the amount of the- debt had been proved ; ' judgment would be for plaintiff for tho full amount .(£3 15s 2d), and costs (£1 6s). Thtjbsdat, Septeitbek 30. (Before Mr H. T. TSfiddtowson, S.M.) Judgment for the plaintiffs was given jin the following undef ended cases:— .W. J. j P., M'Cullooh (Mr Irwin) v. James A. ; M'Cliratoek, claim £3, for goods supplied, with costs (10s); W. S. Riddell and Co. (Mr W. L. Moore) v. Herbert Cough (Nightcaps), claim 19s, bvrin-g amount a.greed upon and owing, with costs (ss) ; Elizabeth A. Thomson (Mr W. L. Moore) v. I Alfred Bacon (Wellington), claim £1 lla 3d, being balance due for nursing and at- ; tendance, with costs (ss) ; Alex. Cor.galton (Mr Alien]^ v. William John Frost, claim 16s 3d, being balance due for goods supplied, with costs (ss) ; Hordern and White (Mr W. L. Moore) v. Thorna s Godfrey, claim £7 4s, for work dono, with costs (£1 3s 6d).