MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 14049, 20 July 1916, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

At the Magistrate's Court to-day, Mr. W"; A. Barton,. S.M., gav^ jiiagmciu for plafintiff in- the following 'undefended civil ci;',ws :— .-Common, '-tSht'iton and Co. (Mr. blah) v. Arthur John Devery (Mr. Buriiard). by c'ucsent, £6 14s 2d and cn'jts £1 Us sd ; Ar.arevv Hood (Mi*. Coleman) v. Arthur J. Devery, '£7 17s 6d and costs £1 7s 6d ; G Aicken and. S'ons (Mr. Burnai'd) v. Hemopo Hair.i, £21 bs 6d and costs £-44s; Adair Bros. (Mr. Wauchop) v. George Cuthbert Hall, £3 . 8s , lOd and costs 15s ; James East (Mr. Bui'nard) v. F. Parsons, £8.125'9d and cosfe £l lis 6d ; Hamiora JJei v. Parii Edwards, by consent, 13s 4d and costs £1 3s • Walter Edward Fagg (Mr. Willock) v. James Lamont. 12s 6d and costs ss; Reginald Ernest Bilham (Mr. Blair) v. Edward McMurray Cuthbert, £23 7s and costs £2 14s; Henry Currie and A. J. Devery, £6 lis 6d and ; costs 123 ; James S. Cooper (Mr. Nolan) v. Harold McDonald, order for, immediate, payment of £5 •Is 3d, in default- tive days' . imprisonrilent. .-"'".' Tn the judgment summons case of H. Bbdley LMr. Wauchop) v. F. Ottawa v (Mr. Bifrnard), a. debt of £32 12s lOd, debtor, who appeared on crutches, having an injured- leg, said he could pay tho amount when he came out of -thebush in September. — Mi*. Bui'nard explained that this* debt was incurred while debtor was employed, as a driver, by IC Field, of Napier. Debtor had to laoceed against Field for his wages, and recovered about £100, but so far the judgment had not been met. — Mr. Wau-, 'c hop suggested that debtor's offer to pay; lhs debt in September was a reasonable excuse for an adjournment.— His Worship said he would hear the evidence. — Debtor gave evidence that he gave his parents .half' his earnings'. It would 'be a month at least before he could return to work. His Worship dismissed the summons. • . ' CLAIM FOR NURSING FEES. Gertrude Wilbow (Mr. ...Bui'nard) proceeded against Rangi Thompson (Mr. Wauchop), to re'oojver 1£52l £52 4s for fees in connection .'with the- nursing of defendant's sister-in-law at Lister Hospital. — 'Plaintiff ; gave, evidence that defendant brought the patient to her hospital early, in N6vember last. The patient was suffering from appendicitis, and had to undergo an' operation that afternoon. .Defendant said he would be responsible for payment, as the girl had been very goodto: his wife. He agreed to pay cash weekly in order to get the advantage of. a reduced^ fee of £3' ss, but when Witness pi'esented the first ; account defendant said he would .rather pay in '-one-sum-'when'-he took' th© patient away, as: he- had' done when 1 his -wife Kvas in enother hospital.. On- -January 22 witness sent for defendant, • and > told him, the patient was well-enough to leave' the: hospital. .When asked for, a settlement; defendant said he had- no intention of paying; he had only said he would so' that^'the girl would Hot worry. Witness ; asked him. if he could -get 'money, a^id .defendant said he could- get £1000 next day, but ho was not going to pay. Witness said she would give him until January 24 to pay. After defendant had conferred _ with his wife, he offered to pay £7 if witness would give him. a clean receipt. Witness refused y '-but offered to take the £7 on account. Defendant -refused to-.- pay.- Subsequently-. Mrs. Thompson and the girl, arranged; that the patient should remain Hiere, an;d they would pay. They had paidi £8 8s out of £14 14s. Defendant, hadj nq't been charged for any of this., period.: —To Mr. Wauchop : Defendant .did not, say he would . pay for the .first week, only. It was one of those cases of ap--, peudicitis thufb. required four, pv five ; ; months' treatment. Defendant did. not. -, say, he would pay if the patient's parents did hot, When he refused t<^. pay lie told witness she could get the money, from the girl's people. > . '. , . '.. Nurse Poppy Wilbow corroborated plaintiff's (evidence. • gave evidence that his si3- --• ter-in-law, Miss Mason, belonged to Nelson. Her parents, were in a good position. . Miss Mason had. been, stayingat witness's place for three or four, months, but owing, to a disagreement '. between her and. witness, she left, wit-ness.-giving her her fare to return .to Nelson and.' some-; pocket-money. She came,, to Gisborne and eventually went to Dr. Scott's -place as , a -nurse. After being there two she' took ill, jand witness arid his wife went' to see \hei\ ■Tliey took-..- her to. Dr. Wilson, who advised an operation for appendicitis. Wit : neeg denied having promised l < to~pay. When, he got the. .first account. \ho told plaintiff he would pay for the first week, i but not for all the time; as he had nothing, to do with the . girl., Plaintiff asked who was going, to pay, and Avitness told her she had better . writo-' to the patient's people, and t.he gave her their address. To Mr. Burnard : Miss Mason had been good to -witnesses wife. He did- not say he would pay -when the patient got better, and no arrangement >vas made for a reduced fee. Ho d*'d hot offer to pay £7 only for the first week. He was willing to pay for tiw first week > for he knew he could pay that, but not for all the time. Ho knew the; patLens would be- there for more than a week. No mention was made of,. £1000. He had no rich aunt. v , Mrs. Thompson, defendant's wife, gave evidence of a similar nature as to defendant offering to pay for the first.,; week. It was not . on account of thei arguments with defendant thaA Miss (

Magon Avent -to Avork for Dr. Scott.- — To Mri.] Burnard ': Witness did not remember if- she told, defendant he should' pay^r. Defendant had borrowed money from her people. Witness did not remember reminding defendant of that and saying he should pay; she -might have said it.. His Worship said he had not the least doubt that defendant agreed to pay the hospital charges, and judgment Avould be given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs £6 4s. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. August Zenker (Mr. Hei) sued Moana Parateno (Mr. Coleman), for £12 13s Bd, b.?ing £11 for money lent in 1914 and £1 13s 8d interest. Defendant counter-claimed £35 3s for coach fares nvid carriage and coach hire during the Scime year. Mr. Coleman intimated that t,.- e original claim Avas admitted. Mr. Dei said, as to the counter-claim, al! the articles carried were admitted ex 4 cept ore, but they disputed the charges as being unreasonable. — Mr. Coleman, said the counter-claim arose out of an arrangement whereby Moana 's coach from Muriwai connected Avith Zenker's motor-bus at Kar'aua bridge, morning and evening, the motor-bus coming on to town; The counter-claim Avas for gcods carried and coaches hired to Zenker \\'hen the motor-bus broke down : aiso for passengers' coach fares alleged t.j have been collected by Zenker Avhen the passengers paid the 'bus fare. This was denied by Zenker. Evidence, was ■then taken, a lai'ge number of witr>rsses *beirg called. iniaii i urifiywiririririmr