R.M. Court.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 420, 22 February 1890, Page 2

R.M. Court.

Ox Thursday, at the R.M. Court, the following business was disposed of: — , Common, Sheton and Co. v. ColonLl Shipping Co., claim £34lB.—Mr DeLautour for plaintiffs, Mr Sievwright for defendant Company. The facts in the case were practically undisputed. Wire had been shipped on board the Clairmont at London, to order of the plaintiffs. A similar quantity of wire had beeu transhipped to Gisborne, but 58 owt of it was not the plaintiffs' wire, and they now sued for the value of this as well as of some brandy that had been broached on the voyage. The vessel vug only under charter to the defendant ComW pany, and the real question wa, as to who was responsible for the loss—the charterers or the owners. The evidence of the manager at Napier (Mr Dobson) had been taken there, and formal evidence was given by Messrs Shelton, Drummond, and Johnston. Mr Sievwrigbt applied for a nonsuit on the ground that the action would not lie against the defendant Company. The law points ware ably argued by both counsel, Mr Sievwright contending that the ship was * general one, that the oontraet had been made with the owners, and that the plaintiffs having no notice of the charter party, they could not now claim from the charterers, Ou the part of the plaintiffs it was argued that even supposing the plaintiffs required to be aware that the ship was under charter, the consignors had notice of the charter by the insertion of the special words in the bill of lading, ' to he transhipped to Gisborne at the shippers’ risk and charterer'! expense,’ nnd that under ths existing law notice to the consignor was notice to the consignee. It was also contended that the captain of the vessel had signed the bid of lading as agent for the charterers, but this was combatted by Mr Sievwrlght, who argued that the captain was agent for the owners, and suggested a construction of the charter party which would uot give the captain authority tn sign as agent for anyone but the owners. After argument, Mr Booth reserved hie decision on the nonsuit point until Tnursday

next. Susan Wallace v, P. Birrie, o'aim £37 Mi 61. Mt Nolan for plaintiff, Mr D.Lautour tot defendant. Thia aotion arose out of an arrangement which th. plaintiff had with the defendant that certain improvements to ba made at Ormond on premisea leased by plaintiff from defendant should be paid for or removed at the expiration of the term. Sub. sequently the property was mortgaged by the defendant, and the mortgagee refused to allow the improvements to be taken away, although the defendant had no objections. Evidence waa given from which it appeared that defendant had acknowledged hi, liability, and had given permission to remove, and had also offered sums ranging from £lO to £2O for ths improvements. The defendant, in evidence taken on commission at Waipawa, expressed his willingness to still give £2O. After testimony as to value, the Magistrate decided to allow the plaintiff £3O, and costs. Gisborne Harbor Board v. H. E Johnston, claim £l2. Mr DeLautour for plaintiff Board, Mr Rees for defendant. The claim Waa for the value of a boat which while moored nt the breakwater was run into and smashed bv the ontter Venus, through, it was alleged, negligence on the part of the persons on board the latter. It will be remembered that this matter was brought before the Board some time back, when it was decided that Mr Johnston should he sued. The defence set up was that tha affair was an inevitable accident, and tha defendant was not therefore liable, and that the servants of the Board had been guilty of contributory negligence by leaving the boat moored in the fairway. The effect of the evidence taken on both sides was that the pilot boat had been used in bringing the Southern Cross up to the pier and had been moored ready for use again. The \ enat in coming into the river, while passing the Cross, lost the wind and began to grips towards the pier. The Captain of the Venus (Captain Harris) gave tha orders required by the situation, but owing to alleged ignorance, oareleagnegf l , or negligence on the part of the oresv, these orders were not carried oat. The consequence was that the Venus refused to answer her helm, veered round and went crash into the pilot boat, with the result tha the latter waa smashed beyond repair. Had

tbe boat not been there it was said the venue must have reached the stone work, with an effect easily imagined. Tbe Magistrate said that if the Captain’, order, had been earned out and the boat then smashed, be would have held that it was an inevitable gooideotg hut as it was he thought h|. only course was MT give the plaintiff judgment tor £lO and costs, Mr Delrautonr did not claim a solioitor a fay, William Maude v, Jamas Eut, claim £3l 7.. Mr Finn for plaintiff; Mr Sievwrlght for defendant. Thia out was commenced on Thursday, but not completed until yesterday afternoon. The facts wore ahortly that the defendant was the tenant of a ahop Iq Gladstone road. He gave plaintiff notion ta ouit, expiring on the 11th January. Businesa was suspended on that day. but tbe defendant did not give up formal possession until three weeks afterwards. At the time he quitted the premises he was in arrear with some rent, and the claim was made up of these arrears and for the three weeks that the premises were held over. The defendant paid in a sum of money in respect of arrears, denied all liability as to the three weeks’ rent, and filed a set off claiming £l2 for gas fixtures which tbe defendant alleged the plaintiff had agreed to pay. The evidence of the parties wag somewhat contradictory, the defendant alleg* ing the plaintiff had agreed to aooept his promissory note for the rent, The plain'iff denied this and alto stated that the offer of £l2 was conditional on prompt payment of the balance, and a memo of the defendant*! was produced to show that ho had abandoned all claim to the £l2, but the defendant said that the amount had been omitted by inadvertence. Mr Booth said he was satisfied that the defendant bad not given opponentsion of the premises, and after some diaciuaiott it was arranged that Mr Maude should be allowed £S 5> for the three weeks, Mr East should got £ll for the fixtures, and pay the costa £4 10a. ( The following cases werq disposed of by Mr Booth, RM.,i on Thursday:—J. K. Morgan v. W. O'Ryan, claim £73 Us fid 1 judgment for £73. costa £\. Bank of New Zealand v. M. Mullooly, claim £9O Ds 8d l judgment by default, ooeta £3 19a. Maude McElwains v. Elisabeth Solomon, olaiiq £2 7s; judgment by default, oost Bs, Judgment summonses— Parnell and Boylan v. Hamlroa Mangakahla. claim £1 3s 4d. Ordered to pay amount forhwlth, or in default two days’ imprisonment. G. R. Moore v. M. J. Oanooq, claim £24 0a fid. An order for Immediate payment was made, in default 24 days' imprisonment. T. Atkina v. G. >|aher, claim £8 7s, The debtor was ordered to pay the claim forth with, or in def anil 9 days' imprisonment. Several oases were allowed to stand Over until next week, owing to the Magistral being engaged In criminal business.