MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 23496, 9 February 1940, Page 12

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8. (Before Air J. R. Bartholomew, S.AI.). DEFAULT CASES. Judgment (with costs) was awarded plaintiffs in the following eases:— Jessie Mable Hutcheon v. EL. Weir, 9s with costs only; Service Motors (Dunedin) Ltd, v. William Cody (Ravensbourne) £ll 17s 6d, goods supplied ; Service Motors Ltd. v. H. Stevens, £5 Hs 9d, goods supplied; A. R. Horne (Henley) v. L. J. Secular (Ravensbourne), £33 9s, goods supplied; James Mitchell v. Andrew R. Anderson, 10s, costs only. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. iThe National Mortgage and Agency CoivLtd. proceeded gainst John bunpsou on a judgment summons, tlie amount being £5 10s.—The judgment debtor was sentenced to six days’ imprisonment, unless this amount, with costs (13s) is paid forthwith. TENANCY CASES. George Smith, who was represented by Mr 0. G. Stevens, was proceeded against by the Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Ltd. (Mr J. C. Robertson) for the possession of a house occupied by the defendant at St. Kilda.—After evidence had been heard the magistrate made an order against Smith tor possession of the house on or before February 22. . An order for the possession of a house at present occupied by Lawrence Fraser (Air D. Silvestono) was sought by Catherine Margaret ■ M’lntosh (Mr 0. G. Stevens), the plaintiff stating that she wanted the house for her own use.—After the defendant had tendered evidence, the Magistrate, holding that the hardship of the plaintiff was the greater, made an order for possession on or before February 22 SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM. Leonard V. Shaw and Olive Shaw, who were represented by Air R. A. King, proceeded against Morrell Irvine Lester Shaw (Air W. P. Hartstonge) as trustee under the will of Samuel Shaw, farmer, of Berwick, claiming £132 12s for board and lodging ana services rendered to the deceased and money paid to him, Mr King explained that the deceased had stayed with the plaintiffs for 10 months, and during this time ho suffered from ill health and required medical attention and special nursing. While he was staying at their house he made several promises to compensate them, but no definite amount was mentioned. He left the plaintiff’s home on October 29, 1938, and went to stay with the defendant. Giving his decision after lengthy evidence had been heard, the Alagistrate said that the law had repeatedly laid down that claims against deceased estates must be closely scrutinised, and particularly was this the case in family matters. In the present' case it was hardly reasonable to suppose that if the deceased had owed the amount mentioned in the claim the plaintiffs would have let it drift on for 10 months. The statements as to the nature of the exacting services rendered to the old man appeared to he exaggerated, and the court was not satisfied that the amount claimed was owing. The plaintiffs must therefore be non-suited, with costs (£3 3s Cd).