MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19276, 15 June 1926, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

TUESDAY, JUNE 15.

(Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.)

Judgment for the undermentioned amounts (with costs) was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases:—Malloch and Levi v. Edgar J. Wilson (Christchurch), £3 7s 6d, goods supplied; Pacific Preserving Company, Lid. v. J. Ashworth (Nelson), £2, goods supplied; F. G. Duncan v. Angus Macdonald, £ls, on promissory note; John M'Lennan v. Allan Joseph M'Donald, £2 10s, balance of account; Elizabeth M'Arthur v. Mary Williams, £1 15s 4d, goods supplied; P. S. Bett v: W. T. Gardyno (Timaru), £lO, goods supplied; James Nisbet v. E. Andrews and Co.. Ltd. (Wellington), £9 3s, materials furnished, work, and labor. COLLISION CLAIM SUCCEEDS. Decision was given in the claim for £39 Gs 5d damages by George Broadtoot Brand, engineer, against J’. C. Nicholls (Milton), a laborer, and the counter-claim for £8 18s. The claim arose out of a collision in Cargill road between the plaintiff’s motor cycle and defendant’s motor car. Mr Bartholomew said that the issue resolved itself into one of fact. After traversing the evidence, the Magistrate said that lie would accept the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs £3 17s, was given, and on the counter-claim judgment was entered tor the defendant Brand. DISPUTE OVER INSTALLATIONS. Further evidence was taken in the defended case of the National Electrical and Engineering Company v. C. W. Paitillo, a claim for £52 15s 3d, balance owing on work and material. Mr A. C. Stephens appeared for plaintiff and Mr 11. G. Barrowclough for defendant. Thomas Charles Stewart, an electrical show room manager, considered that an overcharge had been made. Giving his decision, Mr Bartholomew said that gross inaccuracies as to the cost of materials had been made. The original claim had boon amopded, hut the inaccuracies still existed. Further, no proper accounts of timo and labor had been kept, lie considered that the work should have been carried out tor £BG to £9d. A.s the defendant had paid JJOO on account:, judgment would he given against the plaintiff, with costs.