MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22066, 27 June 1935, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, JUNE 27. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment by default (with costs) was given for the plaintiff in the following cases:—Butterfields Ltd. v. Mrs Lydia White (Merton), £lO 3s, goods supplied: Maiders Motors Ltd. v. James Fitzgerald, £l, services rendered; J. and J. Arthur Ltd. v. John Riordan (Cardrona), £5 4s sd, goods supplied; Reddells Ltd. v. David Macnee, (Waikaka), £2 2s 7d, goods supplied. JUDGMENT SUMMONS! M'Cracken Bros, claimed from Kum Lee the sum of £6 3s 6d on a judgment summons, an order being made for the payment of the full amount, with costs (10s), in default seven days’ imprisonment. PLAINTIFF’S AWKWARD CASE. Miss A. R. Brown proceeded against Joseph Woods to recover the sum of £6 5s for the rental of a small farm property, with dwelling, at Pine Hill. For the plaintiff, Mr R. A. King said that last March the defendant arranged with the firm of Smith and Lousley to iako over the farm at a rent of 12s 6d a week, a verbal agreement being made on March 23. A month later an account for rent was sent out, but nothing was paid, nor was it returned through the dead-letter office. Nothing was heard of the defendant until the court proceedings wore instituted. Then he complained to the solicitors that he had never been .u the place, but gave no explanation until the summons was served as to why he could not get in. Evidence in support of this statement ■is heard.

Representing the defendant, Mr 0. J. Cooke said that the arrangement as stated would not be denied. When the defendant went to take possession of the farm, a man (Renton), who was occupying it, told him that he intended to carry on for another 12 months. The defendant was unable to get the key, but a week later ha learned that Ronton had left. Stock was left on the property, but whether it was Renton’s the defendant was unable to ascertain. Ho did not receive any debit note from the solicitors, that being the reason why he did not communicate with them until his summons was served. In evidence the defendant supported counsel’s statement. The Magistrate said that the tenancy had apparently been arranged, but the defendant was unable to obtain possession of the farm for reasons that had been explained. Unfortunately be bad not communicated with the solicitors to gain possession, but be was not under any legal obligation to do so. Plaintiff had been placed in an awkward position, but judgment would have to be given for the defendant, with costs (£1 Is).