MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12532, 29 June 1906, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., presided at tho Police Court yesterday. DEFAULT CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiffs, by default, with costs, in tho following cases :-»City Council v. Wm. Hannan, 13s sd; same v. Annie Callan, £2 17s Gd; same v. Jessie Dunning, £7 lsild; J. J. Wooler (Mr Salter) v. Jas. Dalzell, £15 15s: Nind and King (Mr Cuningham) v. Chas. Buntin, 2s 4d; R. T. Leathern (Mr Leathern) v. Laura A. North, £G; Beath and Co., Ltd. (Mr Cuningham) r. Henry Tbos. Hurrell, £3. SUBSCRIPTION TO A NEWSPAPER. Tho New Zealand Retailers' Association (Mr Cuningham) claimed from Gapper and Co. (Mr Harper), £1 10s, subscription to a newspaper, tho "Trades' Guardian." Tlie plaintiffs stated that tho paper had been supplied to defendants under contract, and defendants had paid up to January 17th, but since then had fallen in arrears. They had not received notice to discontinue sending it. ' Tho defendants, whose evidence was taken <it Levin, stated that they had written to plaintiffs on January 17th,. to discontinue the paper, and produced a lettor hook containing a copy of the letter. The Magistrate stared that the case was one of proof, and tho plaintiffs had not satisfied him, therefore ho would dismiss tho case. REFUND OF RATES. Jemima Criglington (Mr Flesher) sued Edward Gallagher (Mr Dougall) for £3 17a Id, refund of rates. Robert- Criglington, husband of plain- * tiff, stated that he conducted the sale of a portion of a section of luijd for his wife to « man named McDnff in 1904, who subsequently erected a houso and then sold it to Gallagher. ,Tho latter took possession on April 18fh, 1905, and had continued in posjeroion from that time. Witness gave notice of tho salo of tho property in tho first pLacs to the Valuation Department, and finding that he liad given notice to the ; wrong place, informed the City Council after the completion of tho .sale to Gallagher. Subsequently his wife received a letter the Valuation Department, intimating that tho valuation had been adjusted. The rate.s were struck about September 4th. When his wife reorivejl the notice of valuation ho asked Mr Gallagher i%he would help him to adjust his (Gallagher's) portion, but ho refused. Shortly after the City Council sued his wife for the rates, which wero paid with a 10 per cent, penalty. Tlie part which his wife i-e----tained had no buildings on it, bfrt sho had to pay a sanitary rate of £1 for Gallagher's hou*e, and now she was cuing for the refund of tlie rates in regard to Gallagher's property, together with the sanitary rate. No witnesses wero called for the defence, ami a£er hearing legal argument, his "\Vorshipreserved judgment. i