MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21722, 17 May 1934, Page 11

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, MAY 17. (Before Mr .J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment for plaintiffs was given in the following undefended cases:—Coull, Somerville, and Wilkie v. Percy R. Kent (Pongaroa), £4 15s, work done and goods supplied; Coulls, Somerville, and Wilkie v. R. H. Walker (Auckland), £2 10s, work done and goods supplied; Coull, Somerville, and Wilkie v. T. Young (New Plymouth), £1 3s 9d, goods supplied; Coull, Somerville, and Wilkie v. J. Sievers (Otaki), £2 13s, goods supplied; Joseph Charles Bates v. W. Guilford (Gore), £l3 lia if,, woods supplied; City Council v. Robert Millar (East Taieri), £lB 18s 6d, rates due. POSSESSION OF COOKER. In a case which concerned the possession of an electric cooker John Scott (Mr O. G. Stevens) proceeded against William Hammond (Mr C. M. Barnett). The plaintiff claimed, to recover from the defendant possession of the cooker, or, in the alternative, its value (£25), with damages (£25). . In the statement of claim the plaintiff said he was the assignee or transferee of an instrument by way of security dated October 25, 1932, from Mrs D F. Muir, of Leith Valley, farmer, to Robert Brockbank, of Dunedin, farmer. It was stated that subsequent to the granting of the instrument and without the consent of the plaintiff Mrs Muir sold or caused to be delivered to the defendant an electric cooker comprised in the instrument, and then situated in Messrs Park, Reynolds' auction rooms. It was alleged that default had been made by Mrs Mmr in the observance of the instrument, and therefore the plaintiff became entitled to possession of the cooker, h innllv it was stated that the defendant had wrongfully deprived the plaintiff of possession of the cooker by refusing verbally to give it upon demand made by the plaintiff to the defendant by letters dated September 16 and 29 and on further demand since made. After evidence had been heard Air Stevens intimated that it had been agreed that both claims should be reduced to £lO. . Mr Barnett said the defence was that the defendant was a bona fide purchaser of the cooker from its true owner, J. D. Fleming, and that the range was never the property of Mrs Muir. John David Fleming, farmer, now of Dunedin, stated in evidence that he owned the cooker up till February of last vear. He had gone with Mrs Muir to Messrs Park, Reynolds and instructed them to sell it in Mrs Muir’s name. He did this because he was a stranger in Dunedin, while Mrs Muir was often in town. . The defendant also gave evidence. , Remarking that some of the evidence was unsatisfactory and that there were some peculiarities in it, His Worship said he thought the best course to adopt was to nonsuit the plaintiff. Costs were not allowed.