TO DAY'S COURTS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11755, 20 July 1916, Page 5

TO DAY'S COURTS.

POLICE CASES. (Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, 6.M.) Two first offenders, a man and a woman, were each fined 5s for drunkenness. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for by default, with costs,- was given in the following cases: —Cass dy and Co. v. 11. H. Qarjyndj £l2 5s 6d; National Mortgage and Agency Company v. F. W. Smith and Co., £,'lo 5s 4d; Wynn Williams, Brown and Gresson v. Mary M'Jarrow, £i i.os (id: same v. J. Smith, £1 lis Id; New Zealand Express Company v. Afro S. 11. Morris, 12s 6d; 11. Matson and Co v. P. Cronin, 14s; Matson and Co. v. Ernest Goss, £2l 18s 6d; H. H. Cock and Co. v. J. Ivoir, costs only; Taylor Publishing Company v. H. B. Owen, £1 Is; Thomas Sullivan v. A. M. Saunders, £62 2s; Harold Smith v. F. Joyce, 7s 6d; Spreydon Borough Council v. G. H. Chambers, £4 13s; New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, v. H. H. Joblin, £l4 Is 8d; Clark and Leney v. Percy Rogers, J.os ?.d; W. J. GUl.es v. G. P. Smith, 7s Od; Booth, Macdouald and Co. v. I. N. Griffin, £39 7s 6d; Dr A. C. Sandston v. Albert Forsey, £3 3s; W. Congreve and Ltd. v. Robert Frazer, £3 •lis; samo v. Stanley G. Sharman, £4. A NONSUIT. Joseph Buxton (Mr Williams) claimed £2 6s 6d from Henry Williamson (Mr Hunt) for material supplied to a plasterer who was a sub-contractor of Williamson's. The plaintiff was nonsuited on the ground that he could show no agreement by Williamson to pay because of the sub-contractor's deluuit. A CLAIM DISMISSED. The Buick Sales Company ■ (Mr Anthony) claimed £2O from Kemi>thorne, Prosser and Co. (Mr Wright) as damages sustained to two batteries through the use of muriatic acid, supplied, it was alleged, in mistake by the del endants. J. Aker, ono of the plaintiffs; said that he had gone to Kempthorne Prosser s and. asked for accumulator acid, the same as his partner, Mr Sutherland, had been in the habit of getting. They gave him an order on the storeman, promising to book it. Ho only noticed the word "poison" oi the jar, which was the same as previous jars. He diluted the acid and put it in two accumulators, and it l started to bubble. He then found that | it was muriatic acid, instead of sulphuric acid. He hud taken the old jar when he gave the order, and it had contained sulphuric acid. Edward Eag'le and George Sutherland also ga7e evidence. For the defence it was alleged that Aker came in with the jar and said, the mistake. O. E. Davis, the salesman, said that Aker came in with the jarand said. " Fill this." He asked, " What is it, spirits of salts?" and Aker replied, " Yes." Accumulator acid was not mentioned. Sutherland's name was not mentioned. On the following day Aker came back and went to the storeman. He said that he had wanted accumulator acid, but admitted that ho did not know the difference between muriatic and sulphuric acid. Ho was then asked whether he wanted commercial or pure sulphuric, but did not know, and on being advised to ring up and find out.said that it was useless to ring up, as ho was one of the partners. T. F. A. Alexander, the storeman, .also gave evidence. Judgment was given for the defendants with costs.