MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 18136, 28 November 1922, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, November 28, (Before Mr J. B. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED GASES. In tho following cases judgment, was given for plaintiff by default: —G. E. Glossop v. G. F. Woo'ds, £l, balance account on milk sold, with court costs (10s) and solicitor’s fee (ICs); Scott and Wilson v. J. T. Vickers (Seadiff), 19s 4d, to blinds supplied (court costs 15s, solicitor's fee 15s 6d); Laidlaw and Gray, Ltd., v. Charles Reid (Invercargill), £2O 18s 9d, hardware supplied (court costs £1 10s, solicitor’s fee £1 Us); R. Jenkins v. 11. Murray (Invercargill), £1 11s 3d, groceries supplied (court costs 9a, solicitors fee 9a) : Mackerras and Hazlett, Ltd., v. John Christopher Cuff (Oaraaru), £l2 7s Id. (court costs £1 3s, solicitor’s fee £1 7s). POSSESSION OF TENEMENT. Thomas Simon (Mr Forrester) claimed. £l4 17s 6d and possession of tenement from Adolphus Curline. —In the absence of defendant judgment was given) to plaintiff and possession of premises, with court costs (£1 10s) and witnesses’ expenses (£1 Us). DEFECTIVE PLAINT NOTE. John Walker (Mr Lang) claimed from the Mayor, Councillors, and Citizens of the City of Dunedin (Mir Ramsay) the sum of £SO 10s.—Plaintiff, in his statement of claim, stated that on the afternoon of February 13 lost a tramcar proceeding north along Princes street, between Rattray street and Dowling street, was driven so negligently by an employee of the defendants as to collide with Die motor car of plaintiff.’ In consequence of this his car was out of action for fourteen days.— Mr Ramsay claimed’ that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the action, as the plaintiff had not complied with section 65 of the Magistrate's Court Act, in that the address of the defendants had not been given. He recognised that it was only a technical objection, but notice of the defect had been given, and it was pointed out that the defendants were compelled to take this line of action. Mr Lang said that, ©von if the plaint note was defective, which he denied, the defendants had been afforded an opportunity of discovering the inregularity three months ago, and the fact that defendants •had) not given notice to so defend must be taken as an indication that they intended to waive objection. H© submit ted that section 65 had been sufficiently complied with. The Magistrate said that the point was a technical one. The address of defendants must be set out in the plaint note. The defendants being a body corporate, the address should have been given as in the case of a registered! company. It had been suggested that there was waiver because tiio address was nob given in tho statement of claim, and that therefore plaintiff should have been on the alert to have discovered the irregularity, but His Worship said! h© could not uphold this. The Magistrate said that he had no jurisdiction to hear the and struck it Wt«| sUo>mc(j £3 63 ooste,