MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 20320, 31 October 1929, Page 11

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew. S.M.)' DEFAULT CASES. Judgment was given to the plaintiff* in the following cases:—J. D. Best v, Leslie Ireland, £2 12s, goods supplied;' Macdonald and Kenyon v. J. Patel, £3 Bs, goods supplied and work done; R. S. M.‘Naught v. John IT. Pearson, £2 Bs, an account due; Penrose and Drummond v. Norman E. Naylor (Invercargill), £8 12s Bd, work done; Paterson and Barr, Ltd. v. Frederick Curtis (Tahakopa), £2 3s, goods supplied; W. M. Robertson v. Frank Kitto, £8 7s 9d, an account due; Nimmo and Blair, Ltd. v. Wong Lea Brothers (Temuka), £l2 los, goods supplied; Phoenix Co., Ltd. v. L. J. Thomas (Christchurch), £29 11s, good? supplied; Otago Hospital Board t* Frank Kendall (Hampden),. £8 Us, maintenance ; A. J. Cope v. Dora Storey and Lionel Storey (Brighton), £7 7s 6d, goods supplied, JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Dennis Hussey was ordered to pay Reddells, Ltd,, the sura of £5 11s _6cf, with costs 10s, in default six days iniprisonmen t. R. L. Kellett was ordered to pay AV. T. Rowlands the sum of £9 5s 4d, with costs 10s, in default ten days imprisonment. A. McDonald was ordered to pay the Milburn Lime and Cement Co., Ltd., the sum of £22 Is lid, with costs £1 6s, in default three weeks’ imprisonment. MOTOR COLLISION CASE. The magistrate gave his decision in the case in which Norman Findlay (Mr J. M. Paterson) proceeded against M, I. Ashton (Mr AV. D. Taylor) in a claim for £25 6s 6d as damages in respect to a collision between a car driven by the plaintiff and a truck driven by the defendant The latter entered a counter-claim for £9 10s.. Both parties alleged negligence. His Worship stated that the evidence was very conflicting. The defendant's account was highly improbable, and he was satisfied that tha plaintiff’s reason was to be preferred. Judgment was therefore given to tha plaintiff for the amount claimed, with court costs £2 3s, solicitor’s fee £4 3s, and witnesses’ expenses £1 4s. CITY CORPORATION SUED. As a sequel to blasting operations on City Corporation property in Bauchop street, M’Lachlan and Wright, Ltd., proceeded against the corporation in a claim for £225. The plaintiff company, which was represented by Air W, G. Hay. claimed that on April 23 last blasting and explosions took place on the property mentioned and caused concussions which passed to the plaintiffs’ property on the other side of tha street and caused damage to their i:actory, the front wall being cracked and the side walls damaged. They also held that the blasting and explosions were a public nuisance and dangerous to surrounding buildings, and that the servants of the corporation in charge of the property were negligent in causing or permitting the operations to take place there. The company estimated that the damage to the factory would necessitate the expenditure of £225 in repairs. For the corporation, Mr El. E. EiairowcTough contended that the blasting and explosions could not cause any damage to the factory buildings. Before resuming this afternoon, Hi* Worship inspected the scene and witnessed an experimental operation.