S.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 155, 1 July 1913, Page 7

S.M. COURT.

(Before Mr C. C. Kettle, S.M.) " UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiffs, with costs ' was given in the following uuderended cases: — James Seegadeon v. - John Taylor (Pokeno), £09 16/5; Auckland Meat Co. v. Etta Neva Comlno (Kingsland), £1 4/9; Auckland Plumbers'Onion v. D. Wen* (City), £l o/s Daigety and Co. v. Ryburn lirua. (Mauurewa), £4 11/6; Jane Oliphant v. H. I. Tobln (Enerslle), £30 18/2: R. AY. Oallaugfcer v. .Tns. W. Clarke (City), £2 7/(1; Claude K. Hemua t. Hi, TJonklu (Otorohairga), £5 -16/11; 'Arthur Johnston v. C. . Olsen (Mt. Eden), £1 19/t Henry Fortune ■ v. Rich and Jeffreys (City), £35 1/B; J. P. Sinclair v. -Martin Ryburn (City). £15 .1/6; •' A. Yblcm and Co.,' lia... v. W. R. lloldeu (Churchill), £38 6/3; Flucber Bros., Ltd. (in liquidation) v. A. A. Dall (Newmarket), £10 13/10: Mercer Co. t. Kash Merce»y Co. (Wanganni), £4 5/; L. D. Nathan and Co.. Ltd., v. A. B. Corrigan, (Wellington), £15 1/3: Tanpirl Coal Mines, Ltdt, v. 00. Hastie (Cambridge). £43 7/3; same v. M. McNnmaTa (Ongarue), £4 8/10; Mrs Mary MacDlamld v. Michael Welsh (City). £!): John Burns and Co., Ltd., v. 'Henry Cooper and Co. (Ohaktme), £42 2/1; Auckland Meat Co., Ltd.. v. Geo. Anderson (City), £11 2/4: Alfred Clark v. Alice Kehoc (Krnirelaitd), £1 2/6; same v. Frank Weston (Ellerslie), £2 7/(3: Heather, Uoberton, Ltd., v. Kebecca Blddock (Grey Lynn), £10 13/0: Benson and Co. v. Pautme Hogg (Newton), fjo; N.Z. Loan and Mercantile Agency Co. v. Win. Donaldson (Devonport), £12 ft/7: Parker Ltnub Timber Co, litd, v. H. Tobin (EUenlfe), U 3/2: C. Leek v. Reginald li. Clarke (City). £6 2/: John Alexander v. Jas. M. Dowel (Ptatarnro), £2 0/3: B. .T. Dudley T. George Swan (City), £2 12/6: Jas. Sexton v. Tie*. Jay (Grey Lynn), £12 IA; Taupiri Coal Mines, -Ltd, v. A. Park (NBaronwaMa). £3 6/8: EJtaa Gibson v. J. Bond (City), £3 3/; Jas. McDermott v. W.. , Woodhouse (Ctty), £1 M/B; Roope Bros. v. Mary Boss (Dunedrn), £1 2/8: Forde and. Co. v. Wm. Dickey (Frankton), £3 10/:. . same v. Wm. Bekker (Ponsonby), £10 10/: Carpenter Arthur v. M. Tobln. £2.. 18/7; Phlllipps and Bnpey, Ltd., v. O Connor and Fuller (Tamnannnrl). £12 C/ll; A. B. Donald, Ltd., v. W. 8. King (Xganuiwahta), £7!) 11/1 X): Wiwgate and Co., Ltd.. v. A Weatherall (Henderson),' £3 2/S; wime v. ,T. T. D. Gunn (RaeUhi). £1« 71: A. J. - Oliurn v. A. B. Rugg (Newton), £2 O/.l: Forde and r Co. v. George Hughes (City). £3 10/; Mount Albert Borough v. John Miller (Olenmore), £14 12/3; Forde and Co. v. Hcnrv T. Dalzell (Ctty), £4 15/; James Preston v. Arthur. Morgan (Mpunt Albert), £3 12/ C. LANDLORD AND TENANT. Some disputed matters connected with the .*. tenancy of a house and land at Northcote were tbe subject of a claim for £23 10/. made . by the owner, Mrs Ellen Jane Fraser (Mr E. J. Prendergast), against the tenant, Dl-. Neltl Keitli (Mr F. Stilling). The plulntln* claimed £8 13/ for tbe right of grazing on a > paddock from Jnly 30,101 Lto April 30, 1013,, at £5 per annum, £11 15/ for the -removal of - a coachhouse, £1 for the removal or a fo)?l „ run (both erected on the land by defendant), • and £2 for certain shrubs anil flowers re- . moved by the defendant from the garden. ... The plaintiff stated that in April. 11)11, shortly after he took the bouse. Dr. Keltl: leased the grazing of a paddock at £5 a year, paying her a- quarter's rent In advance. Subsequently he put up a coachhouse and fowl run in the paddock, but removed them when he pave up his tenancy. The defendant, on the other hand, denied that he had evci leased the grazing or paid over the deposit as stated. He said that he- bad uevet tethered his horse in the paddock, but had merely allowed a man to Bold the haltet and let it graze there at odd times. Tht plaintiff bad allowed him to put nn the coachhouse and fowl run quite opart from any lease of the grazing. After some further evidence had been heard the plaintiff ngreed to abandon the claim for ill 15/ in respect of the coachhouse, as it was admitted that she hud agreed to give Dr. Keith some compensation for it if- he gove np the tenancy. - In regard to tbe grazing, the magistrate took tbe plaintiff's view, and awarded her the sum claimed. Judgment was given for . 15/ and 80/ respectively for the removal of tho fowl run and the shrubs, making f I together with costs.