THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16960, 8 October 1920, Page 4

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTIXGS. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Sim.) i'ATHEK CLAIMS AGAINST 6OX. Charles Schroedor {Mr if. J. Gresser.) claimed from his eon, Chrislephor Schroeier (Mr P. W. .TohnefOTii. th<? return of £250, the repayment of £15, and the delivery of three lioxce cor.taining pereona! effoctsi. Plaintiff, who is 79 years oi age. and t»hD is cot- able io write, ailegcd that -be asked iis son :o deposit £250 in his (the eon's) Poet Office Savings Bara nteonnt. The <iff«Tice was, tint tso pkinti3 mvjo a. gift ff ihe £250 to defendant, that defendant had repaid the advance of ±'13, and <i.:rat- defer.dant at no time refused delivery af the perjoival effects claimed. Aster hearing evidence on belidi of tx>tb pcrtiee, hie Honmtr hold that the PliO vns handed to defendant as trustee, and judj , - inent ■»■>*!) for nJairAiff, oefendan-i hevng <kJ to reya.v the awonnt; wae for cofeTftlant on tbo wcond claim, his Horostr h(v!din?r taa.x pShuitiff had 2eceiT.>d :fhe anxwit, and jtid.jine7!t >vus for phin'lJS on the Jliird claim PhuniiS Txas awarded costs as p<or soafe as for a claim ;<.t £250, and ivitnose's exp=nse3. fo l>e fist-J br thf< Kojret.raT. D«fendani was Slbwed i 7 10s co*Je in «>;' second rlaitn. CLAI2kI FOR POSSESSION. llary Hunt (Mr TJ-pJiam) clojmed possession of the premises. 24 Sherborne etr«»t, ©L 'Al'ltans, from llxiokl Ixi-wjn Curtis (iSr Buoho.nan). Deicnd«.nt. a <ii«r.hnrged »«di*r, • claimed il.nl he had purchase"! tho property, bat plaintiff i«pudi»tad and denied that sh* h*d S»iv»u an <<ptios aver the property. Th« tenancy expired on Jfay 31st lest, and frinco that dat« defendant ha* J pa.Kl no rent, whic!.', l»wa-ver, ]i«d hcer. paid" into Coirrt. Txv fe-ndant rolifd on Seofjon 13 et" tins TVa.r Ivegisln,tion Statute Law Amendment Act, 1018. Mr XTpliam &Tibtniil«ci tha.! tierccdeut was only cntit-W lo the benefit of tlo section : i he h(r.l oontirrued to pay rent. 'Mr Buche.mtn s»:d that defendant »<!- risodly w-itbh«"ld pa-meret, of rout in otder lo imluco plaintiff lo give a conveyance. Mt Upham eadd that defendant, by clr.iming to be thft ow-ner in oqiiitj- of the property, removed liimself from tit© protection of S?otion 13, that section inter-Jed, to protect tenants -A-iio ore enldicie, hut not to uro-fiecl a.rr?oro> cJainxircj tbo ownership of ths property.

His Honour held that defcndajil had r.nt brought himaelf within tli* terras of tho section; to do so Tie ought; to huitt pa.id tho rent monthly. Bea.vis.T. Ceircwrn (1920, .% Times Law Report?, p. '396), cited bj- Mr Uphatn, -was cikaT authority that a tender of lent aiher vroeeotlinss have been ia&en for recovery of possession of the j.-reraiaes was •too late. Judgment •was given for plaintiff* with rent at 35t> per week itxaa /Tune. Ist, lflp.O, to July 10th, 1020. xnA easts on thn middle stale as on a claim for £100. MAGISTERIAL. THURSDAY. (Before Afir S. E: McCarthy, SJrt.) BREAOH Ob , PROBATION OEDBK. Alfred Brncsfc Smith, alias "Watevnii was cJ»ilg«d witK failed to romply wjth tho terms of hie prolnttion older, iesnied on 3feT>Tnary 24th. He was abo chajgod with Uiat, on or about May Hi.h, 1920, at Christchiiieh, viiih intent to defraud, he obfaiined from Walter Scales tho s«im of £2 by mwna of felscly roprcßsntiflff • JiimHcJf to bo A. W. Williamson, coal jncrtrhsrit, St. Altons, Accnsod wwb cocvicted, a.nd ordered to come •up for eentence when caJJpd upon, and to ie* prort to tie Probation Officer fiw a. term o! two yeera. Ho was also orderei to be prohibited, and to refund, tho ainounfc of tbe etokn money. CIVIIi BUSIN'IiSiS. Jtrdgmcajf was given plaintiff Tay default in «adli of Kha follojrms csaes.:—William D. Mailoch v. Wm. T. Hines, .t'2 7e Id; R. Arlow ;uid Co., Ltd. v. F. J. Bitdd, £73 Oa Sd; Trad© Auxiliary Company of New Zealand, Ud. v. E. MoKay, £3 14s 3d, A, O. MSk traa ordered to jiay Tudks, LrtvL (Mr L. A. IkwgaU) £2 16s, on A judgment immmonfl, in default ecrei days' imprisonmeTit^ H. C G-rahame trw ordered (to pay F. D. Keeteron (Mi C. S. Thomas) the mini of £46 forthwitli,in default .three months' imprisonment. James Torpy -was ordered to pa.y Arthur Hynoa (Mr W. J. Hunter) 20* worfcly off a debt of £117 oa, ,coin«acing.on October 14th. CREAM CARTING CONTRACT. H. Tyson, enntractor, of. Teddington (Mr R. A. Cutlibert) prooocded against T. Fairh&iiTi,'hotel proprietor, of Teddingion, clwmingr in respect of a contract for carting crpom for the Tai Ttt.pu Dairy Company. Tho plaintiff claimed that-he had signed on agroement wiiih the defendant, • the lalte-r tindertaking to ohtain the .contract for £200 for the ytar 1919-20. Defendant to transfer' to plaintiff all plant used in connexion wiiU the contract, including horses, harness, etc., ptadntiff to maintain the plant in good ordoa: and condition. Defendant undertook to pay plaintiff £QS p?r quarter, and on itho eatisfactory cmnplelion of ' 11» contract the plant wonild h<jcome piunliffe personal property. Plaintiff clninhsd to toe eaxried out hia pant of tho contract -u»til ahcrat .Ttrne 20th, 1920, v/hen: defendant took poseeeaion of'the plant, and refused to allow pkdatiff to continae carting- the • cream. In .consequence of tJiae action plaintiff claimed £17, bafcnoe duo of the lilurd qua/rt*rly paymont of /U5, £75 paid hy plaintig for the plant now token by defondant, and £10 damages, • f«tr hreach of contract. Defendant okimed that hia action was- justified in that. plaantiS had failed to c»rry out il* term© of ■the aßretcnnent. Judgment teas given for (ihe plaintiff far'£l7, paid into Court, no farther easts to he allowed the plaintiff. With reewL to the respective sums of £75 and £10, -pmmtLff was rron-euited, and ordered to pay it-he defendant's ooete," ae on a claim for £85,' as' follows: —Witneßees's expenses £3 19a 6d, and solicitors' fee £1 10s.