MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19843, 17 April 1928, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, ADD 11« 17. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment by default was given to the plaintiffs in the following eases;— William Brown and Co. v. bred. Williams (Alexandra), £l4 2s sd, goods supplied; A. and W. M'Carthy v. W. C. L. Henderson, 2s, services rendered; Booth and Hook v. A. E. Smith (Duntroon), £5 Is 2d, goods supplied; Bundstrum and Thompson v. Mrs R. L. Raseoe, £d 2s, dental advice and services rendered; A. Goodley and Sons v, F. Anderson, £5, goods supplied; J. and J. Arthur, Ltd., v. Henry Bell (Clyde), £7 4s 9d, goods supplied. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. W. Stanley was ordered to pay Rose Ellen' Lowe £7 Us 6d, with costs lUs (on account due), >u default seven days’ imprisonment, the warrant to bo suspended if ho pays instalments of os per week, the first payment to be made on April 24. J. W. Frew was ordered to pay HB. Burdekin £4 14s 4d, with costs (8s), for goods supplied, in default live days’ imprisonment. APPRENTICE’S CLAIM. An application for removal to the Supreme Court was heard in a case involving a claim for £JUU against Charles Begg and Co. (Mr C. L. Calvert! bv a .youth, Kenneth James Riddle (Mr G. T. Baylcc), The plaintiff claimed the sum mentioned as damages for failing to teach him his trade as an apprentice and tor dismissal before the expiry of his contract. The Magistrate adjourned the case for one week to enable the Supremo Court application to be made. SEQUEL TO EXCAVATIONS. John Oliver Thompson (Mr E. J. Anderson) proceeded against i). A. O'Connell (Mr B. S. Irwin) in a claim for £l-5, allegedly due as damage to the plaintiff’s garage. 'J ho plaintiff was the owner of the land and premises situated at the corner of King and St. David streets- The defendant, during the months, of September and October, 1927, was a contractor employed to do certain alterations and additions to the property in St. David street adjoining that of the plaintiff’s, and known as Prospect House. ’I he plaintiff claimed that by reason of the excavations made during the progress of the alterations and additions, the defendant negligently withdrew the support to the plaintiff’s adjoining land, and therebv caused damage to Ids garage, which "the plaintiff assessed at £l3 An adjournment was made to enable the magistrate to inspect the property. On resumption lengthy evidence was taken, the court adjourning at 1 p.m.