MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19772, 24 January 1928, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, JANUARY 24. ' (Before .Mr J. K. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Jutlgme.nl by default was given to the plaintiffs in the fallowing oases;—A. E. Usherwood and Go. v. H. Dalrymplo (Tauranga), £5 18s, goods supplied; Allen, Son, and" M’Chire, Ltd., v. F. E. Yates, £5 7s, goods supplied; Vacuum Oil Company v. H. Robinson (Berwick). £8 19s sd, goods supplied; South Island Traders’ Agency, Ltd., v. W. J. Foote, £B, goods supplied; R osina Craig v. Frank Yates (Christchurch). £3l 10s, hom'd and lodging: P. Fraser and Sons v. John Restioux, £6 9s sd, goods supplied; H. and G. K. Neill, Ltd.,°v. Mrs M. Martin (Cromwell), £2 2s, goods supplied; Leslie Ralph Gardiner v. George E. O. Cross (Christchurch), £33 18s 7ti, I ho total of various sums advanced to the defendant by the plaintiff, or alleged to bo received by the defendant on behalf of (he plaintiff; Michael Kean v. Alexander Clark (Milton), £L 19s, goods supplied; J. and T. Christie, Ltd., v. C. Nieper, £4 Is 2d, work done and materials provided; Keddels, Ltd., v. William Foote, £1 9s 6tl, balance due on goods supplied; Green Island Borough Council v. Bernard Pimley (Burnside), £ll 18s 6d, rates and penalties; Nestle, and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company, Ltd., v. J. N. Semple, 5s (costs only). JUDGMENT SUMMONS. G. Watt was ordered to pay John King £8 3s 7d for goods supplied, in default nine days’ imprisonment. CLAIM FOR TRESPASS. The Magistrate gave his reserved decision in the ease in which the Otago Harbor Board (Mr H. A. Barrowclongh) proceeded against Palmer and Son, quarry proprietors (Mr W. G. Hay), in a. claim for the sum of £9O as damages for trespass on the land of the plaintiff lying between the defendant's quarry at Logan Point and the BluffLyttelton railway line. On the alternative the plaintiff claimed £9O for use and occupation of tho land for the period from January 1, 1926, to October 20, 1927, at £SO per annum. The action arose out of an agreement between the Minister of _ Railways and the Otago Harbor Board in respect to the deviation of the main railway lino running between Dunedin and Ravensbourne. Under that agreement provision was made for the continuance of tho various siding connections to the main line, amongst these being that of Palmer’s quarry. The deviation made tho quarry more remote

from tho main line, and the provision contained in the agreement stated that the Harbor Board should reserve the necessary land for additional connections, and reclaim if. The Railway Department undertook to lay rails to the siding. Subsequently Palmer obtained a siding license in respect to the new siding, for which he was to pay a new license fee. Tho basis of tho action was that the Harbor Board claimed (hat it was entitled to receive rent in respect to the extra land used by Palmer and reserved by them. The Magistrate reviewed the details and provisions of the agreement in a lengthy judgment. “Having agreed to make the reserve,” ho said, the board could only ho interested in stipulating for the siding connection to be made by reason of some benefit to itself, and the only benefit to tho board is (.he customary charge it makes for similar privileges. The position then is that the defendant occupies and uses the board's laud by means of the siding extension which was constructed under tho circumstances set out, and I can see nothing in the agreement entitling him to a. full use of such hcnelllis. 1 consider (hot the amount claimed is reasonable, and judgment will therefore be for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, £9O, with court costs (£2 10s) and solicitors’ fees (£5 10s). Security for leave to appeal was set at £ls. DISPUTE OVER FURNITURE. Alexander Wilson MTarlanc, of Enfield, proceeded against Mary Allewynne Parkes M'Farlane (formerly the wife of the plaintiff) in a, claim for the recovery of certain articles of furniture. In case of not being able to take, possession of the goods tho plaintiff claimed their value (£93 10s) and £25 as damages for their detention. Mr A. C. Hanlon represented the p'aintiff and Mr W. L. Moore the defendant. Mr Hanlon stated that the plaintiff had divorced the defendant some time ago. and she had declined to give up furniture belonging to himAfter hearing lengthy evidence His Worship said that there were two lots of furniture to be considered, one bought from Scoular and Chisholm, to the value of £IOO, and the other from a Mrs M'Bride, to tho value of £35. Tho circumstances indicated that the former lot was purchased before tbe plaintiff had relumed from the war, and he w r as not entitled to claim in this respect. The plaintiff allowed the defendant certain articles claimed, but others would have to be returned. The case was adjourned for one week to allow’ these articles to be returned. If (his was not done, then judgment for their value would be entered.-