MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 29 July 1925, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, JULY 28th.

(Before Mr W. Meldrum, S.M.)

CIVIL BUSINESS,

Judgment by default was given in the following undefended vases:—t-. C. Wade and Co. v. William Johnston. 19s; Studley and Robson v. Miss Q Knyvett, £1 5s 9d; Ashby Bergh and Co Ltd., v. G. Davies £2 4s 9d; Mrs P. A Abbie v. G McDonald £1 17s 4d Florence Elmer v Michael Blewman, £78s 3d; Ashby Bergh and Co. Ltd. v Thomas Johnstone, £l2 19s 9d. In the case of Frank Ayson v. Colin Bell, defendant, wos ordered to pay the amount claimed, £8 7s (id, forth with, in default 14 days’ imprisonment.

H. J. McConnell proceeded against J. Mulqueen for the sum of £3. Mr Smith (for Mr W. J. Joyce) appeared for plaintiff. Defendant stated that, he was unable to make any offer at present. To Mr Smith: His wages averaged about £3 10s a week. He was a married man with three children. He admitted agreeing some time ago to paying five shillings a fortnight, but ■he didn’t know if he could pay that amount, now. He did not, want to dodge payments, hut he had a family to keep. Defendant stated that he had offered to pay five shillings a fortnight, but Mr Joyce had written stating that the agreement was for five shillings a week. Mr Smith produced a letter in which it was stated that defendant agreed to pay five shillings a fortnight. Defendant denied ever having written the letter. His Worship: Whose writing is it 7 Defendant: I don’t know. His Worship. Is it your wife’s?

Defendant: No. Afterwards, defendant admitted that it was his wire’s handwriting. To his Worship defendant admitted that for some months past he had been making £5 per week. He had not a decent blanket in the house, and was paying off other debts. During the next few months his wages would average about £7 a fortnight. His Worship made nn order for the payment of ten shillings a month..

John Henry Allan sued Mrs Catherine Quy for the sum of £l4 12s, balance of purchase money on a house at Rapahoe. Plaintiff alleged that defendant. had bought the house, agreeing to a certain price. A deposit had been paid and since then there had been no other payments. Tho defence alleged that there was no title to the property, the house being built on a road reserve. This was not known by defendant at the time the purchase was made. When it was known defendant refused to make any further payments. Plaintiff contended that the property was not road reserve.

There was considerable discussion as to whether or not the property was freehold, as it was eventually decided to adjourn the case for a month, to ascertain whether the property was road reserve or not.

Mr. Joyce appeared for plabutiff, and Mr Hannan for defendant.