MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 20556, 7 August 1930, Page 14

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7. (Before Air J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment for plaintiffs by default was given in the following cases:— Wimpenny Bros, and Reid, Ltd,, v. J. A. Shepherd, £B, promissory note due; Wimpenny Bros, and Reid, Ltd., v. J. A. Shepherd, £4, promissory note due; Stanton Bros, and Co. v. David Whisker (To Aroba), £1 5s lOd, goods supplied; Jane Hughes v. North O’Neil, £6 5s 9d, board and residence; Hunt and White v. J. H. Vercoe <Clyde), £7 4s Id, goods supplied; Laidlaw and Gray, Ltd., v. F. Weingott ( Christchurch), £2l, goods supplied; John Edward Butler, Ltd., v. W. Dabb (Thames), £2O 5s 4d, goods supplied; J. Jackson Purdie v. P. A. Walsh (Invercargill), £1 12s 6d, work done; New Zealand Fur Company, Ltd., v. W. Sparkes (Qhai), £1 Is 6d, good supplied; Watkins and Neilson, Ltd., v. J. E._ A. Thompson, £1 16s, goods supplied; D.1.C., Ltd., v. N. M'Leod (Kurow), £7 12s Bd, good supplied; Penrose and Drummond v. F. G. Shepherd, £2O 10s lOd, work dorie and goods supplied; ’New Zealand Tablet,’ Ltd., v. H. J. Mulqueen, £6, cost of advertisement. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Orders for immediate payment were made as follow:—Cash Drapery Stores (Cromwell), v. John Wilson, defendant to pay .14 17s 9d, in default five Jays’ imprisonment; Reilly’s Central Produce Mart, Ltd., v. L. Grant, defendant to pay £5 3s lid. in default five days’ imprisonment; T. D. Dalziel v. Talbot L. Johnston, defendant to way £3 13s 6d, in default four days’ imprisonment; E. B. J. Docherty v. John Smith, defendant to pay £2 10s lid, in default three days’ imprisonment. ORDER REFUSED. - The Magistrate declined to make an order in the case in which William Leask (Mr E. J. Anderson), of Maungatua, proceeded on a judgment summons, against Thomas Geary (Mr Neill) to retover £26 7s. Evidence was given by defendant that ho had earned only £l9O since August last, and that he paid SOs a week lent: Three children were , going to school, and there were three others at home, two being in work and one unemployed. He had had to abandon a farm in the Taieri, and, though it was still in his name, it was not noted. ORDER FOR POSSESSION. G. B. Smith and A. J. Fox (Mr J. M. Paterson) proceeded against Charles Samson, claiming possession of premises in Cargill road, owned by the plaintiff, who had served defendant with a demand for possession on July 14. The plaintiff Fox said he had been carrying on business as a butcher, and originally was a tenant of the defendant. . On June 16 he entered into an agreement with the defendant to buy the property. He paid the purchase money, the solicitors settling on his behalf. Defendant was in possession of the upper part of the premises, the agreement being that he was to get out when plaintiffs purchased the property. Demand for possession had been made on July 14, but had not been complied with.—The magistrate mad© an order for possession on or before August 14, defendant being ordered to pay costs amounting to £2 Is. CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. The Commercial Trading Company (N.Z.), Ltd. (Mr W. Ward), claimed from Charles Begg and Co., Ltd. (Hr Calvert), the sum of £23_, commission due on the sale of machinery.—After plaintiff had given evidence Mr Calvert moved for a nonsuit on the grounds that the defendant’s factory manager, had no authority to deal with any agent in connection with a sale, and plaintiff was not entitled to commission, as he did not make a sale.—The Magistrate upheld Air Calvert’s contention, plaintiff being nonsuited. Costs amounting to £6 13s 6d were allowed the defendant.