MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19519, 29 March 1927, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, MARCH 29. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases;—Wimpemiy Bros, aud Reid, Ltd. v. A. Robertson (North-east Valley), £3 7s Id, goods supplied; T Thomson (Leith Valley) v. Mary Ellen M'Culloch, £3 Is 3d, account stated and agreed upon; A. E. Usherwood and Co. v. J. W. C. Swain (Hastings), £9 2s, goods supplied; Dunedin Industrial Co-op., Ltd. v. John Alex. Paterson, £2 2s, account stated aud agreed upon; Hogg and Co., Ltd. v. Anthony Hcssey, £2 9s Bd, goods supplied; F. Thomson (Leith Valley) v. G. Birchwood (Caversham), £1 16s IQd, account stated and agreed upon; the Queen Cycle Works v. H. Hirt (Musselburgh), £2 J7s. account stated aud agreed upon. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. An order for immediate payment was made as follow:—Ford Motors (Dunedin), Ltd. v. W. Kemp.—Defendant ordered to pay forthwith £l2 7s lOd, with costs £l, in default fourteen days’ imprisonment. CLAIM FOR RENT. Alice Elizabeth Knowles (Mr R. S. M Sinclair) v. Archibald Owens (Mr ('■ J. White), claim for £4 6s, being for rent of dwelling for five weeks from September 6 to October 11, 1926, at 17s per week.—Counsel for plaintiff said that plaintiff had purchased tho property from a man named Connell, and the settlement had been made as at ■September 6. Tho solicitors lor tho vendor had prepared a notice to the tenants of tho property to pay rent to the purchaser or the solicitors. Plaintiff had sold later in the year, and adjustments had been made on a friendly basis between the solicitors.— Mr White said that the sole point was as to the ownership and the person to whom rent was duo. Defendant admitted that he owed someone, but the question was whom. He thought it was due to Michael, to whom plaintiff had sold the property. John Mirams. a clerk in the employ of Messrs Sievwright, James, and Nicholj and Harold E. Emmerson, a clerk in Aspinall and Sim’s, gave evidence as to the nature of tho transactions in connection with the notices that had been served on defendant. — The Magistrate said that it was sti ange to see what the bother was, as defendant admitted owing tho rent.—Defendant said that he had originally paid his rent to Mr Connell, but the reason that he had not paid Mrs Knowles vvas that after receiving notice from Aspinall and Sim that plaintiff had purchased the property he received notice from Michael that he had purchased the property from Mrs Knowles, and he would want immediate possession Defendant vacated the property on October 4. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £3 Bs, with costs amounting to £1 17s.