THE COURTS—TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 17314, 30 March 1920, Page 4

THE COURTS—TO-DAY

MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before H. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M) Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in the following cases : —Public Trustee (Dunedin) v. R. F. Densem (Mosgiel), costs £1 ss.—W. Buddie (Mr Lang) v. Robert Rutherford Douglas (Mr Irwin) £5, amount of dishonored cheque, with costs £1 3s 6d.—Gaudin, Marr, and Thompson (Mr Moore) v. W. Mowatt, £2 16s 6d, on account stated, with costs 11s. —Same v. Jacob Hagar, the younger (Westland) £2 16s ICd, on account stated, ■with costs 12s.— Drapery Supply Association (Mr Moore) v. Alexander Adams Shanks (Port Chalmers) £1 Is sd, on account stated, with costs 10s.—W. Harris and Son (Mr Moore) v. John Martin, £5 12s 9d, for shoes, with costs 10s. — Same v. Peter Rumble, costs 3s.— Gaudin, Marr (Mr Moore) v. William Gye (Clyde), £2 10s fid, for goods supplied, with costs 10s. —Walker "Bros. (Mr ■Moore) v. 'William .Somerville Ritchie, 12s 3d, on account stated, with costs ss. —Mary M’Kinnon (Mr Moore) v. D. E. M‘Millan (Nightcaps), £2, on an account stated, with 16s costs. —Charles H. Tucker and Co. (Mr F. B. Adams) v. Eliza Knowles (Balclutha), £24 9s Id, groceries, with £2 14s costa.—.Tames Speight and Co. (Air Lang) v. Thomas M'Caughern (Kaitangata), £1 10s, goods sold, with 5s costs.—F. and T. M‘L-ean (Mr Irwin) v. Adolphus Curline, £5 10a, for clothing, with 10s costs.—Laidlaw and Gray (Mr Moore) v. W. Claxton (Invercargill). £1 15b, on an account stated, with 5s costs. Inspector of Awards v. Constantino Sou mar os.—lnspector Wakelia prosecuted, the claim being for a penalty of £lO, in that the defendant, being tfie proprietor of dining rooms at the corner of the Arcade and High street, failed to keep the time and wages book required by the award; and the plaintiff also claimed to recover £lO penalty for failure to postup the required time-sheet.—lnspector Foley gave evidence as to the result of a visit by himself and another inspector on or about the 17th January.—Defendant pleaded ignorance of the requirements of the award.—His Worship fixed the penalty for not keeping a wages book at at; £1 ° T not post * ns U P a time-sheet The Housing Problem.—Francis Wm. 0 Connell (Mr B. 6. Irwin) v. Charles Matthews (Mr Brown).—The set of circumstances out of which this case arose were that plaintiff bought the house in winch defendant was living. Plaintiff bought the house on or about February Ai l S av-a defendant a month’s notice, t-ii • on< ? mon th defendant was still in the house. —Plaintiff therefore claimed possession; storage of furniture at store ss, receiving and delivery 12s. cartage to store £l, cartage from 'boardmg house to house 6s, four and a-half days board of self and family £5 6s and rent to March 25 £1 17s 6d.-Defendant pleaded that he had done his best to get a house to rent, but was unable, and ultimately had to buy one.—Mr Irwin said it should have been the defendant who should have gone into lodgings and n °t >he Plaintiff, who owned the house. —His Worship said the claim was reasonablo and gave judgment for plaintiff for xS Is.