RANGIORA.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5700, 20 October 1896, Page 3

RANGIORA.

Tuesday, Oct. 20. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., Mr A. Todd, J.P., and Mr J. L. Wilsou, J.P.) Breach of Borough By-laws.— Nicholas Colombus, fish hawker, was charged with unlawfully tin-owing filthy matter inta the street channel on Oct. 13, contrary to the borough by-laws. Defendant denied the charge, but it was conclusively proved by evidence from J. Johnston, G. F. Smith, Constables Copeland and Johnston that on the date named and on previous occasions he had caused a nuisance by cleaning fish in the street and throwing the refuse into the channel. Defendant was fined 10s and costs, and was told that if he appeared again on a similar charge the line would be doubled. Slaughter-house License. — A renewal' of a slaughtering license was granted to A. Parsons, Fernside. Civil Cases. — D. M'Kay v. Newman Andersen, claim dSlo 103. Mr Johnston for plaintiff, Mv Helmore for defendant. JH 7s was paid into court. This claim was adjudicated upon by a Bench of justices on Sept. 29, and a nonsuit was entered up. A fresh summons was issued for the case to be taken by tho Stipendiary Magistrate. Plaintiff's, case was that about August, 1895, he supplied to defendant's order three dozen milk aerators, at 11s each, payment to be made for same within four months. On Jan. .8 received a cheque for .£6 19s , 3d, which paid for amongst other tilings six aerators. Defendant sent a note with the cheque Btating that he had only* sold six of the aerators. Defendant's factory was destroyed by fire on May 18, and on the morning of that date he asked witness to estimate his loss for the insurance claim. Witness included thirty aerators then said to be destroyed, but afterwards the number was found to be twenty-six. Witness had no interest in the claim, and defendant said nothing about including the aerators in his (witness') behalf. Rendered accounts in June, August and September. Did not press defendant for payment at the end of' the four months, because they were on very friendly terms. Thornhill Cooper, average adjuster for the Insurance Companies, stated that defendant, in making his claim for loss, included the aerators in the list. The insurance on the fittings and utensils in the factory was £18, and when he found the value was more than represented by the aerators and safe, he passed the claim for payment. t For the defence N. Andersen stated that the aerators were supplied by plaintiff to' be sold on a commission of Is 6d each, the difference between the makers' price of 11s and the retail price of 12s 6d. Witness sold ten, some at 12s 6d and others at 9s. Had about forty-five milk suppliers at the time. An arrangement was made fcr suppliers to pay for them by monthly instalments. The aerators did not sell readily, and witness disposed of some at a loss, for the reason that the use of the appliance would improve the quality of the milk and butter. When asked for a statement of loss he supposed he had to mention all the articles destroyed, and so included the aerators, but not with the idea of claiming on them. The Stipendiary Magistrate said it was unfortunate the case had been previously heard before a Court differently constituted. The evidence on that occasion may 'have been led in a different way or* the circumstances stated in a different manner. He had no donbt whatever after hearing the evidence that the merits of the case were with plaintiff. He did not wish it to be implied that his opinion was in any way a reflection on the decision given by the Justices. The present case was not an appeal or a re-hearing. On the previous occasion the evidence was not sufficient probably to justify the Bench in giving a decided judgment for either party, and they folr lowed the good course of entering up a nonsuit. The statements with regard to the. insurance claim tainted defendant's evidence so far as to put it out of Court as creditable evidence. Judgment would be for plaintiff for full amount claimed and costs. Application foe, Re-hearing. — An application for a re-hearing of the case Walker v. Allison, before the Court at the last sitting, was made by Mr Deacon, defendant's counsel, but was opposed by Mr Helmore, for plaintiff. The application was refused.