MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 18, 21 January 1916, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■-... ■'.'.' *i- ■ : . CBefore Mr E. Page. S.M.) ' APPLICATION FOX REHEAEisi}-" An application was made by Mr H V Purhani tin* niornlug for a hetrjoz £',{' case of W. U. and l>. H. WijSms Mr v V H. Ostler) v. M. L. Cleland, in whicSd ment had beeu given lor £75. Toe ck! ■ arose out of a demand for hire by defenai.? of picture films from yialutlOfs, who t«rt£i-- : as tue Universal Film Supply Co.' ?(u r - v hearing }ir Uurnam, nis V» otsbip ifiSeS that Mr Ostlei- need not address the Oouh He held that evidence as to the valueeiS' alms could have been oDtained at the tims the case was dealt with. The apuu ca tio! was therefore dismissed, coste (£> a/i hei,,!." : allowed. "**» A. DISPUTED ACCOUNT. --'. '■'-; Decision «-» feiicn x±i v tttisc uu* jnormnx "' tt'mcu jiiUileu jescciuuy. iue yisuiuu,»c.« ■ivuuJi.j.s uuu i.-yw- Liu. jUU, A, fc .,: ckciton,/ auJ vie ueieuujucs Ulctuuu J.X'at-.' umes ijar. it. i. Motile;, t'lamutts solium to recover ;tU 1/ Uuluuce aucseil to be *|uj on the i»urcuaae ot a quauaty oi giia • ordered oy ueieudain's sou. xiie uiun w±i 15/ ixaii Ueeu paia into court by Tue evidence way concluded late yestetuay iitternuou, and argument was heard ply UioriUng. In giving judgment his Worship aalj tte whole iiuestiou was whether the. price wu' ■ ' 15/ or 18/ per case. The man who )»u ' making an individual ordtr which wju wt ' in writing was more likely to remember tie actual facts than one who was dealing eon. Uiiually in such lines. It was cjear tie price quoted was 15/, but plaintiff jtijej the glass was beiug indented. It did iiot seem that was made a condition, of th° contract, that if the glass was not ♦reliable from the Old Country, Jt jnuet be pni. cured locally, and if that was done (here would be a difference in price. The glut had to be bought locally, and Hie cost mi 20/ per case, less 10 per cent. Plaiiuftook over the indent of glass from Horn? ; ; at co3t, which was done. His Worstta h*ld that plaintiff was not entitled to M? - ceed, as the price quoted was 15/ per ait",'. Jndsrment was therefore elven for ti»e 4^; ; fendnnt. witi costs acnording to scale. ' ' WIFE'S COirPX,AIXT DISMISSED. " Alfred Franklin Boy appeared to oppoit Wβ wife's request for a separation atiu ■ and maintenance. The wife made tktlous complaints against her husband, ajligjng:;. craelty. Mr. Roy on his part compUjineJ that his wife did not look after the properly, and had left her home. Somt time , = was spent in, allegations and denials, ; an4;, finally Mr. Page dismissed the informitloi} OB the ground that complainant thadiapt made out 'her case. He was, therefore, en- ' able to make an order of separation. 0Ti« : husband then went over to his wiU iai said: "You come home," wWch rtiei ; de-: ':.-.' ctoed to 40,