MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18651, 21 August 1930, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

TIMARU, AUGUST 20. (Before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M.) Judgment, by Default. Judgment by default was given in the following undefended civil cases: James Lewis Baxter v. S. M. Dinn, claim £l2 18s 6d, costs £1 14s; A. B. Annand and Co. v. W. J. McCausland, claim £6 9s 4d, costs £1 9s 6d; Ellwood and Son v. Stanley Nung. known as Stanley Chong Sing or Stanley Johnson, claim £3B 3s lOd, costs £4 Is 6d; Westport Coal Co. v. C. Burns, claim 15/6, costs 12/-; Charles George Morgan v. Eric McKnight, claim £l3 10s, costs £1 18s. Judgment Summons. J. O'Brien was ordered to pay Thomas William Manchester £4 13s 6d forthwith in default four days’ imprisonment in Timaru gaol. [ Mr J. P. Steven, who appeared for I the judgment creditor, said that defendant was not sufficiently interested to appear. Petrol Pump Claim. John Needham, Ltd., Timaru (Mr W. D. Campbell) proceeded against T. Harris and Co., service station proprietors, Stafford Street South (Mr G. J. Walker) on a claim for £75 8s 3d, being the balance allegedly due on the cost and installation of a petrol pump. Mr Campbell said that £3O had been paid on account by defendant. Accounts had been sent for the balance, and these had been ignored for some time, till defendant repudiated payment altogether. John Kenneth Leslie Needham, managing director of the company, residing in Timaru, said that the first arrangement was made with Harris for the installation of two pumps, one to be paid for by defendant and one by witness’s company. The pumps were to be installed together, the cost of which was to be met by both parties. The company had only one Fry pump on hand, but tanks which were separate from the pumps, had been sunk to prepare for two Fry pumps. Harris was not keen on the provision of a Boyle-Dayton pump, which was the only one available, so the Company agreed to allow him the Fry pump and take the Dayton as their property. The account for £lO5 for the purchase and installation of the Fry was sent to Harris, who forwarded £3O on account. Harris did not object to or repudiate the purchase of the pump till after several monthly accounts had been rendered. Witness interviewed Harris personally, the latter at that time stating that he desired to have the account wiped off. To Mr Walker: At the present time the Fry pump, which was supplying witness’s spirit, was Harris’s pump, this being brought about by defendant’s desire to have the Fry after it was found that two of the same make could not be secured.

L. J. O’Connell, solicitor for plaintiff, gave evidence of Mr Harris disputing the pump account, and the understanding had been reached in regard to the payment of the. petrol.

Mr Walker said that the defence alleged that the contract had never been carried out, but that the Dayton pump was put in pending the arrival of another Fry pump to supply the spirit which Harris desired to sell through the pump that was his property. Thomas Harris, one of the defendants, outlined the arrangements entered into with Needham. One Fry pump supplied a certain make of petrol as mentioned in the agreement, but in view of the situation he (witness) desired, Needham promised to give him a Dayton pump temporarily until another Fry could be secured. To Mr Campbell: ‘‘Well, at that rate neither pump is your property?”— i “That is so.”

“Why did you pay a deposit?”—“l thought that was fair, seeing that a Fry was coming along later.”

Edward James Rush, electrical engineer, said he had heard Harris tell Needham that he would have nothing but a Fry pump. He gave evidence of the installation of the pumps, and the inconvenience and expense that would be entailed in shifting the Fry pump to the position desired by Harris.

Daniel J. Doyle, plumber, stated that with Rush he installed the three tanks at once, the two having amalgamated in separate contracts. He did not agree that the three tanks being erected at once would make it more difficult to remove the centre tank. In his opinion, despite the railings over the top, the centre tank could be removed at only an additional cost of a few pounds.

The Magistrate said he could not conceive how defendant came to pay a deposit of £3O, and be so silly as to do this without any comment, especially when accounts for the balance had been sent for some time. In his opinion Needham’s story was correct, and the

difficulty of shifting of the pump was an after thought on the part of Harris. Judgment would be entered for plaintiff for the full amount of the claim with costs, £7 ss. Reserved Judgment. The Magistrate gave reserved judgment in a case in which P. H. Luscombe, of St. Andrews, farmer (Mr J. Emslie) claimed from Misses C. and C. Thompson, of Winton, £26 4s 6d, for wood and chaff cutting carried out on defendants’ farm. Defendants counter-claimed to the extent of £2B 13s 4d. for goods supplied, principal in which were meat and chaff. The Magistrate said he was of opinion that plaintiff would have brought his action much sooner had there been a considerable difference in his favour. There seemed to be no dispute about his claim for £26 4s 6d, which was allowed. The plaintiff admitted, on the counter-claim, having received chaff and wheels, but stated he had paid this off by work. He could not succeed on that defence. He would allow plaintiff judgment on the claim for £25 13s 4d and costs £7 Is 6d; and defendants who became plaintiffs on the counter-claim, for £26 4s 6d, and costs £7 14s 6d. Further Evidence Desired. In an appeal last month against the valuation of a farm situated at Cricklewood for the purpose of assessing death duties, the Magistrate gave a reserved decision. The plaintiff was the Public Trustee in the estate of the late William Evans (Mr L. E. Finch) and the action was defended by the District Valuer (Mr F. Stowell), acting on behalf of the Valuer-General. The Magistrate stated that he had experienced some difficulty in considering the case in view of the insufficient evidence on both sides as to the marketable value of the property. Most of the witnesses had given evidence as to the productivity of the farm, but that was not, in his opinion, sufficient to decide a valuation as required by law. The witnesses had done their best, but had failed to impress him when it came to altering the valuation. What he wanted was a fair and reasonable value of the place on an open market. He adjourned the case for another fortnight to allow counsel to confer as to the advisableness of calling further evidence. Nominal Penalty. The Inspector of Awards (Mr G. McKessar) proceeded against Dorothy May and Lucy Joyce Ransome (Mr L. Andrew), on a claim for £lO penalty for a breach of the bakers’ award, for employing a female to bake cakes to be sold over the counter, the employee not being brought under the scope of the award. Mr McKessar outlined the facts, stating that the defendants had pleaded ignorance of the award. Mr Andrew said that it was admitted that the cakes had been exposed for sale on the counter of the tea-rooms, but if defendants had known the provisions of the award, which had recently been referred to the Arbitration Court for a decision, they would not have allowed the employee to bake cakes other than those used in the tea rooms. Their business was principally in the tea rooms, and the. breach could quite easily have been avoided had defendants been conversant with the provisions of the award. The Magistrate said that the breach was quite a technical one, and entered judgment for 1/- without costs.