RETURN OF CAMERA

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 March 1937, Page 2

RETURN OF CAMERA

CASE AGAINST E. J. HILE. In the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth, to-day, before Mr. Raymond Ferner, S.M.,' Arthur Lydiate, for whom Mr. L. Sumpter appeared, proceeded against E. J. Hill, of Wellington. and formerly of Greymouth, for (he return of a Hawkeye camera, valued at £3. the property of plaintiff, and allegedly wrongfully detained by the defendant from December, 1934. until the date of entering the plaint; or, alternatively, the value of the camera, if possession could not be obtained. Mr. Sumpter said that notice to defend the action had been,filed, but he understood there was no appearance of the defendant, nor had any solicitor been instructed. ‘‘This man. Hill, is what I might call a notorious character in this town,” continued Mr. Sumpter. “This action is. over a camera owned by my client, which he asks that defendant should be compelled to return. On November 13 and 24, 1936, my client made specific requests for the return of the camera, but they were both ignored. After the second request, a most insulting request, was made by Hill to my client, for £2 10/- as the balance owing on an engagement ring allegedly bought through Hill, which was an absolute fabrication, as a witness. a jeweller, will state. I ask for an order for the immediate return of the camera.”

The S.M. : intimated that he desired to have the plaintiff establish ownership and identification of the camera. Plaintiff produced copies of letters sent to defendant on November 13 and November 24. The first, he said,- was returned, and there was no reply to the second. The camera was definitely his property. The S.M. gave judgment for plaintiff, for the return of the camera, or, in default, for £3. with costs, solicitors’ fee and witness’s expenses, to scale.