MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21286, 15 December 1932, Page 14

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment (with costs) was given for the plaintiffs in the following cases:— Commercial Investment and Discount Company v. G. R. Gill, £2l 7s, balance duo on promissory notes; Hislop and Gibson Ltd. v. J. Jackson Munro, £l4 9s sd, goods supplied and repairs; Otago Hospital Board v. J. H. Vickers, £2 13s, hospital expenses; Smith and Smith Ltd. v. G. Stanley, £1 2s 6d, goods supplied; D.S.A. Ltd. v. J. Attwoll, £lO 15s 10d, goods supplied; D.I.C. Ltd. v. Mary M. Smith (Christchurch), £2 12s lOd, goods supplied; Jessie M'Queen v. J. S. Reid, £1 15s, laundry work; Otago Hospital Board v. Hector George Henderson (Queenstown), £2 6s, hospital expenses; Adess and Son Ltd. v. H. Yarwood (Napier), £5 Is Bd, goods supplied; Otago Hospital Board v. Robert J. Butler, £2 7s, hospital expenses; Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. J. A. Sloan (Bnlclutha), £5 39s 2d, goods supplied; Milne, Bremner Ltd. v. J. R. Hopkins (Round Hill), £9 Is 9d, goods supplied; William David Rose v. H. Gibson, £4 4s, professional services; Otago Hospital Board v. Robert Smith (Green Island), 8s (costs only). ORDER FOR POSSESSION. An order for possession of a tenement on or before December 29 was made against Stanley Leigh in favour of Joseph Miller. Judgment for £35 15s (arrears in rent) was also entered. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Ernest Duckett was ordered to pay D. Murdoch (Brighton) £l4 13s 6d, with £1 Is costs, in default fourteen days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended so long as he pays 10s per week. NONSUIT ENTERED. Ernest Dickens proceeded against Charles Medley, constructional engineer, in a claim for £29 12s Bd. The plaintiff said that he was engaged as a cook for the defendant’s camp at Tarawa at £3 per week for six weeks, the work thereafter to be on a contract basis. The defendant, he claimed did not fulfil the contract, and the plaintiff was left stranded at Parawa. He consequently claimed £l9 2s 8d (six weeks’ salary £lB, train fare 13s 4d, board and lodging 9s 4d), together with general damages of £lO. Alternatively, the plaintiff claimed, £2 17s 8d (loss of employment on relief works £1 15s, tram fare 13s 4d, board and lodging 9s 4d), with £lO damages., Mr O. Stevens represented the plaintiff, and Mr Dawson the defendant. The plaintiff gave evidence on the lines of his claim. For the defence, Mr Dawson said that on all construction camps it was the custom that the cook was either employed by the men under contract or oy the Mess Committee of the men. That was explained to the defendant, who went to the camp to see things for himsetf. The defendant appeared to be dissatisfied with things at the camp. He had an accident on the road, and it was snowing on the day he was there, and he left without telling anyone in authority that he was leaving. Mr Dawson explained that the defendant had not been brought to Dunedin, as he was at the camp in charge of a number of men. His Worship said there was a conflict between the witnesses; it would not be safe for him to take, one view or the other, and the plaintiff would be nonsuited.