THE COURTS—TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 17393, 1 July 1920, Page 4

THE COURTS— TO-DAY

MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Define .1. P«. Bartholomew, Esq., S.M.) Judgment .hr default, was given fur plaintiffs in the. following cases;—Johu'.on, Sims, and Co. (Mr A. C. -Stephen?) v. Rohsi t .Murdoch (.'.iataiira), costs (Ssi ; Burton Bros. (Mr Mnopp) v. Cornelius 3ledgers. £ij 12s. on account stated, with 00,--ts (ill Ss 6i’o : .Johnston, Suns, and Co. v. Harry Lcriimi Allport (Auckland). £1 To- . for hooks supplied, with costs ;5?) : dobn Douglas Best (Mr Moore) v. J. W. Gioenfleld (Springfield). £2 10s, for drapery supplied, w'itli costs (£l.) ; Colombo Tea Company, Ltd. (Mr J. B. Callnn) v. A. Napier (Christchurch). £5 Os fed. for g O<U supplied, with costs (£■! 3s 6d) ; .Mercer and _ Mitchell. Lid. (Mr Monro) v. 'Mark Carr (Clinton), £24 or. 7d. for •groceries sup'dic-l. with costs- (£2 Us! ; C,a lets, It it chic, and Co. (Air Moore; v. John McCartney (PoiiobMln), £l4 9s 3d. for produce supplied, with costs (£1 10s 6J). Patrick Carotin claimed £8 Q.s 2d fioni Joint Evans on n judgment .summons, the araonnfVtenig for grin-cries supplied.—Defendant <lid not appear, and the Magistrate made an order for the payment of tile amount due forthwith, with costs (Ss). in default seven days' immisonment. the warm tit to he sftspciided so'long as del fehdant paid instalments of Ids per week. Sarah Kllen .Morris claimed from .Thomas Holloway Walk >• r - on of a shop and premises at 240 formiry road. St. Clair, let by pianiint to defendant atn weekly tenancy. ..!•■ J. B. Callao :;p----neared 'for' plaintiff, and Mr W. O. Hay for defendant.—Mrs Morris guvs evi-

in ' which sho admitted that defendant paid-liis roii*’- regularly; hut she objected to Fiis “disagrceablem-ss."—Mr FTnv contended that, plniiiiiff must be nonsuited as the notice to cant had been informal. Runt had nlso boon accepted hy plaintiff lifter slip had given the notice to (put, counsel contending that this ('rev teci a new tenancy. lie also claimed that it was a case in which the Wat: Relations could apply, for. although defendant had used the shop for business purposes, he had not entered. into any agreement with plaintiff that he should do’so. Thu purpose of the house- -Was residential, and it ought to be considered as a dweilinghouse.—Defendant '.said hr evidence he took the place at a weekly rental. Ho admitted, under crass-'examination, that v/hen be paid rent to Mr Callan he a-areed that it was not to affect the notice to quit. -*-Mr Callan said' the informality of'notice as • claimed for the defence was; ooanlerbalaneod by a fetter from Mr Ha.v, in which it -was stated that defendant was lonkinc for another house. Defendant had <••.!•<• idly admitted that the payment of rent, after notice was not to affect the He contended that the War Rrdilations did not apply, and that the shop was not nart of the dwolling-honse.—The .magistrate said ho would look- into the c?j? and give his decision next Thursday. John Ca 'so Arbnchle claimed from Charles-Botins, or in the alternative, from •lohu M'Doiiakl.. agent for Dotting, the sum of Sid 7 ? 6d. being the balance of a ;k-oo=it of £25 paid by the plaintiff to M'Donnld on account’p£ the purchase of a. property at 9. Bathgate road, the sale of .the .property having -been, cancelled. 3fr >l. H. Brown appeared for -plaintiff. Mr W. Allan for Dotting, and Mr Dang for M‘Donald. —Mr Lang contended that '•TDonnkl. aS an agent, could not iie sued for the. act of the principal, escest under very special eircmnganccs.—The’ .Magis- ♦ rate took, this view, and gave iudorcent for plaintiff against Rotting for the nmor.ntrlcknod. with costs (£2 9s Sri). M‘Donald’s name was struck out, and costs of £1 la awarded against, plaintiff.