MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19588, 21 June 1927, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, JUNE 21. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT GASES. Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following eases:—W. Low v. D. Hensleigh (Si. jvilda), 16s, services rendered; Dunedin industrial Co-operative Society v. Thomas Tree / Tahakopa), £7 Is 2d, account stated; Co-op. Fruitgrowers of Otago, Ltd., v. J. Robinson, £2 15s Vd, goods supplied; and J. T. Cooper v. Jack Robertson, 10s, services rendered. ORDER FOR POSSESSION. An order for possession of a tenement was made as follows: —Henry David Lamb v. Henry Allred Parker, judgment also being given for £4 and costs (£1 8s 6d), for rent due. CLAIM UNDER AGREEMENT. A claim by Keith Welding and Co., Ltd. (Mr G. T. Baylec) against J. G. Lindsay (Mr W. G. Hay), the nearing of which had been previously adjourned, was continued, the amount claimed being £94 11s Bd, alleged to he due under an agreement. The claim was made up of £SO, the amount of a promissory note, rent of lorry, £39 9s *id. and damages to lorry,_ £5 ss. The case for the plaintiff was that, by an agreement on February 4, the defendant agreed to hire a Ford lorry from the plaintiff company, and that part of the consideration lor the agreement was £SO, for which defendant gave plaintiff his promissory note. By the agreement defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a rent of £9 17s 5d per month or part of a month in which the lorry remained iu the defendant’s possession, the first payment to bo made on March 4. It was provided that the defendant might terminate the treaty by returning the lorry to the plaintiff and paying all rent which had accrued up to that date. The lorry was returned to the plaintiff but no rent, etc., had been paid. The refusal of the defendant to accept the lorry ban resulted in pecuniary loss to the plaintiff, who claimed tho amount of such loss. Further evidence was called in support of the plaintiff’s claim, and tho case for the defence was set out bv Mi-l-lay. The condition of the whole affair was that the lorry was to be thoroughly overhauled and put into proper condition. The defendant wonted it as soon as possible, but when it was delivered it caused defendant a tremendous amount of trouble. On the first run out the lorry stuck defendant up on the Musselburgh Rise, and it was brought back to plaintiff, who endeavored to persuade defendant that it was all right. A few days later the lorry, with only a small load aboard, would not take a hill on low gear, and the engine stopped for nearly half an hour. Ultimately, defendant brought tho lorry back to plaintiff, and told him it was no good to him as it was, and that it should be overhauled. The manager of the plaintiff firm averred that the lorry had been overhauled purely to satisfy defendant that it was an old ton lorry, and tho cylinders wore worn to such a state that they became irregular. _ Oversized pistons had been put in which did not fit, causing a knock and heating, followed bv trouble to the engine. It was alleged that the lorry had never been put into proper condition as set out in tho agreement, and the defendant had been seriously inconvenienced by plaintiff’s failure to supply the truck as agreed. (The hearing is proceeding.)