MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22272, 25 February 1936, Page 12

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25.

(Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.)

DEFAULT CASES,

Judgment (with costs), by default, was given for the plaintiffs m the following cases :—Elizabeth Samson (Burnside) v, William Smith, £27 19s 6d, cartage costs; Texas Company (Australasia) Ltd. v. Walter Candy (Mataura), £lB9 2s Id, goods supplied; T. Marechal v. James 1. Fitzgerald, £7 15s, money advanced; Electrical and Plumbing Supplies Ltd. v. Henry Boyer, £1 4s 9d, goods supplied; Young Brothers v. A. Stewart, £3, work done; Don Harvey v. G. Alexander Smith, £lO, balance of account owing; James’ Jersey Dairies v. W. W. Pauley, 8s 9d, goods supplied; same v. J. Duncan, 5s 2d, goods supplied. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Todd Motors Ltd. proceeded against John Niven on a judgment summons to recover the sum of £5 5s 6d, an order being made for the payment of the balance remaining (£2 19s), in default three days’ imprisonment. UNUSUAL POSSESSION CLAIM. , The Public Trustee, as manager of the estate of the late John M'Nicklc, proceeded against Ernest James Wassell and Mary Wassell. claiming possession of a property at 40 Moana crescent, and the sum of £76 5s for the use and occupation of the property from October 16, 1934, to December 17, 1935, at the rate of 25s a week. Mr F. C. Dawson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr O. Stevens represented the defendants. It was stated on behalf of the plaintiff that prior to October 16, 1934, the said property was occupied by the male defendant, as the tenant, and that since that time the two defendants had remained in possession of the property without the grant of any tenancy, and without paying anything for the use and occupation of the property. On October 5, 1935, notice to quit the property at the expiration of one calendar month was served upon the defendants. A copy of the notice was also personally served iipon the female defendant. Possession of the property had not been delivered to the plaintiff, and the defendants still remained in possession of the property.

After evidence had been heard, Mr Stevens said that the defendants had been allowed by the Public Trustee to remain in possession of the property for eight months without anything being done about it. He suggested that the proper course was to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter of proving M'Nickle’s will, and that the present action had been brought in the wrong court. The magistrate held that the court had jurisdiction so far as possession was concerned.

Mr Stevens then announced that Mrs Wassell had agreed to vacate the premises within a week, and the magistrate accordingly adjourned the case for nine days, stating that any day a decision might be given by the Supreme Court, which would clarify the matter. •