MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 761, 9 March 1910, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

AN INTERESTING.CASE. (Before Mr. W. R. Hiiselden, S.M.) Kessrs. H. Oscar Hewett and Co., Ltd., proceeded against John Atkinson and Mary Atkinson, for -the- sum of £6 55., balanco remaining .on .the .purchase of: a sewing machine, valued at £ 14, and possession" of the ; machine,' • All. Anderson, who" represented plaintiffs, called' the 'company's' manager,. Mr. i Hewett'. -He said ; that-the..sum-of- £7 15s. had been paid, and on • being askod if he intended to distrain for the'amount owing;, replied in the .affirmative. , ■ > ■ His. Worship said that legally he could not stop the company doing such a thing, but something:'would bo done/.to; prevent that - being done in'the future. Taking all things , into consideration,it iwas hardly morally fair that agent's, , after getting within a; fraction'of the. value of the machine,. shoujd sue for and obtain' judgment,. .and. for . possession 'of the' machine, too, by'distraint. . i Mr. Hewett explained that if defendants paid -the: balance still' duo on ' the ma-1 chine, it would be returned, and this was done" invariably. . Any way,' such ma- 1 chines, ivhen returned, say, after .'three I years''use,, .wero of 'little valuo.' i: His Worship stated' that that course" of action appeared quite fair and jiis't.' and ga;ve. judgment for plaintiff; " '■ ' PIANO CASE. ■ His Worship gavo judgment in'the case : ot the impire Loan and . Discount Company, Limited,,v. IVG.: Maoarthy. Plaintiffs claimed ' a-piano . which- defendant had seized for Tent. .After reviewing the evidence,, his Worship said that, .'on the wliole oase;..he..was unable, to accept the plaintiffs' .case as proved. The onus was 011 "je plaintiffs of .satisfying his mind, and, for certain reasons (stated) his mind was. unsatisfied. Judgment would, be for defendant; with 15s. costs. Air. Da appeared for plaintiffs, and - Mr. Peacock for defendant. ,'

AN. ADVERTISINGDISPUTE. the case of the Trade, Auxiliary | Company v.. E.- Reynolds and Co.- .Mr' /■Dunn, appeared, for.plaintiffsaml Mr. W. il. D. Hell for., defendants.- This-was .'a claim. ioi.-£i, : balancer alleged- to be -due tor-advertisements inserted in the "Mercantile Gazette." Plaintiffs' evidence was ;tH n - ln Christchurch,; and-.it. appeared that in July, 1906, defendants gave a written order, for the insertion- 61 an. adver--«m me . n V f l r ' ono-'.Tfar.•■:-In-. December, } m ' n ,2,? im } s P*" l Plaintiffs a cheque tor.±l7 J6s. 6d. This amount covered ad--vertisenients for more than, a : year, but the period over tho. year: which the re- ; j..??} c , ov<3 . re, i was .'disputed.'.: It .was: admitted.iby plaintiffs that, they -.had' received.no instructions. to- continue the advertisement for more than a year, but they allege that they-considered,-that;the' contract was. intended to run ori'untir they received notice to cancel tho advertisement. This notice they did not receivountil September, 1908. ■-> ■..•'!. .... Mr 'A e i 1 J r ?J sed a n ?usuit point on' the ground that there, was no contract on'the i part of the defendants 1 to pay for tho advertisements, after tho expiry of the year for which a, written order was given, and submitted tnat. tho payment, whioh included a sum for whioh tho defendants -were not legally liable; oould not'be-talcon' ,¥ tn? acceptance by tho defendants of a liability to;pay for-all futuro insertions. Judgment was reserv'od.

;■ KAROEI,/COtWCIL;NONS'UI'TEDi '.;' p -Sirkwood for- rates "in 1908;'-' It 'appeared that the council had been unable to find-defendant, .and.-they ; bad -substitotedi service by advertising in the press. At the time defendant r was ; living in his house in respect-'of which ffie'rates'woro claimed. The'-Karon- Borough Council now. sued for the sum' of ',£3, being tho costs of-advertising. "'■"■.•" , A j te , r .", Bearing' argument, his Worship held that the council were not entitled to succeed. It was unjust' to compel defendant to pay for advertising when the man was living on the property for which' rates were claimei Judgment was for defendant without costs.' • Mr. Brandon jun., appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Short for defendant. . >:- A BUILDING: CLAIM/ ■ Messrs. Mildennall.- and' 1 Eason".sought n? r «*°ver the-siim of j;75 18s. 3d. from ?• VV.-Boon, which' they./ allege is a balance duo on .a. contract in connection with a house erected, by the plaintiffs for defendant..' -Defendant denied'liability on the ground that the .'plan and 'specifications had; been departed from, -and he a 'so sought'to set up a~ counter-claim for .£IOB Gs.- 9d., damages, sustained by' reason of the plaintiffs, executing the work in an alleged unskilful, and unworkmanlike .manner. , After'partial hearing; the case was adjourned till, Friday. Mr/Wilfofd appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Dix for defendant...'....';..-. ;_'..."•';;";.' : • ; :/\ OTHER -OASES/.-'-':-:',- -.''-, : When the case A. D'. Kennedy i\ Jaines Murphy, involving a -claim for £i : 135., was mentioned, Mr. Toogood, representing the plaintiff, intimated that plaintiff aid not intend going on with the : case. Judgment- was, accordingly entered 'for defendant, with costs M 13s. Mr. J- L. Short appeared for. defendant. . Emily Cook, for'whom Mr. Toogood appeared, claimed £2 .. for '■■■ rent ; from Charles Carter.. Judgment was for plaintiff, with .£1 12s. costs. ''■' In the case H. Oscar' Hewett and C 0.,Ltd., v. Alice Maud' Parker, claim ,£3, judgment was entered for plaintiffs for amount claimed, with costs. David 'Wm. Hepburn claimed' from Williams'and Meredith tho, sum of M 7s. Plaintiff was awarded judgment with costs ,£1 Us;'--Mr.' Jackson'appeared for plaintiff. - • . THE UNDEFENDED LIST, Plaintiffs, were . awarded judgment in the following undefended civil cases :— Albert Edward "Marin v.' Victor E. HasIsm, 12s. 6d., costs Gs.;E. Eeynolds and Co., Ltd., ,v, .Dudley Byrne, £37 ss. Cd., costs £1 Bs„j ; ißqland"F. Digby, v. Mary Hewson, .£1 18s., .costs 10s.; Jessie Aspen v. Oskar Lindahl, £2 14s. 6d., »sts'ss.j John V. Dyke v.'William.-Eioe, ; ,'.£2'loii. Cd., costs 12s. j Wm. Quayle v. Edward Pealce, JE2 7s.,'costs'. 105.;. H.M. .tho King 1 v. T. J. O'Hagan, £3 55., 'costs 10s.; W. J. Montgomery- v. Samuel Hoscgood, .£9 12s. 2d., costs £1 3s. 6d.; To Aro Furnish-' ing Co. v. Violet Grigg, i! 4,195. 5d., costs! 10s.; W. H. Nash v. J. A; Davies, £3\ 19s. 7d., costs 125.; J. .1. Devine v. Margaret Quill, £6 4s...costs Bs.; S; S. Patterson and Son v. Patrick O'Hallorari, £1 lis., costs ss. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. An order for the payment of tho amount owing, on or before March 22, in default threo days', imprisonment was. made in tho caso of Smith and Smith, Ltd., v. Wilmot C. Quinnoll, balance due £3 16s. Cd. David Martin was ordered to. pay to tho A. ar.i P, Food Company tho sum of J!8 17s„ on or before April 5, in default eight (lays' imprisonment. In tho caso of D, Finlayson and Son v. Leonard Alfred Wadhom (amount due £1 18s.. 3d.), dofendant, was ordered to pay, on or before Maroh 22, in default is .hours' imprisonment