MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19004, 28 July 1925, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, JULY 28. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. Judgment by default for plaintiff, with costs, was allowed in each of tho following eases:—F. and 11. Woods, Lid. v. J. Findlay, goods supplied, £3 8s lOd; F. and F. Martin, Ltd. v. H. B. Scott, account duo, £5; George M’Knight v. G. Logg, petrol and oil supplied, £ti IDs; the Government v. Arthur OlivetWood, money lent, £2O ss; tlicUhrenix Company, Ltd. v. Mrs ivy Fitzgerald, goods supplied, £l2 4s 7cl; H. J. Gill v. H. R. Bartlett, goods supplied, £1 7s Cd. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

ITallcnstein Bros., Ltd. (Mr H. E. Barrowclough) proceeded against Dan Grant for the recovery of £lO 0s ]od, amount of account (with costs).—An order was made for payment forthwith, in default ten days’ imprisonment. John Jackson Purdte (Mr J. M. Gillies) proceeded against William Stanley, of Tomahawk, for the recovery of £1 2s 3d for goods supplied, with costs. —An order was made for payment forthwith, in default two days’ imprisonment. Ellen Jolley (Mr W. L. Moore) proceeded against J. Ferguson for the recovery of £4 3s tid,'account duo, with costs,—An order was made for payment forthwith, in default five clays’ imprisonment. r “NO MATTER OF FORM.”

Occasion was taken hy the magistrate, in the claim made by ‘Warren T. Kaler, builder, Green Island (Mr J. M. Gillies), who proceeded on a judgment summons against James A. E. Perry, laborer, Abbotsford (Mr B. S. Irwin), for the recovery of £l3 9s for rent cine, with costs, to_ warn litigants against any inclination to regard the completion of affidavits where a judgment summons is sought as a more matter of, form. To rebut an affidavit put in by Kaler, judgment debtor produced a series of documents recording his weekly earnings as being inadequate to meet the debt after providing for the maintenance of Ids wife and three children. Cross-examined by Mr Gillies, defendant denied that he had told plaintiff that ho had the money hut would not give it to him. He admitted that lie had at one stage made an offer to pay 15s per week, but to do that he “would have to rob someone else.” After the magistrate, in view of the debtor’s financial position, had refused the order, Mr Irwin claimed costs on the ground that the judgment creditor’s affidavit had been filled in without any attempt being made to ascertain whether the debtor could meet the liability. He contended that plaintiff should be present to support the statement. Allowing costs (£lls), the Magistrate remarked that it was important for all parties to remember that affidavits were not mere matters of form. Before filling them in the creditor should be in a position to support his statement wuth proper evidence. That had not been done in this case.