COURT NEWS.

Grey River Argus, 21 November 1928, Page 8

COURT NEWS.

EVICTED TENANT’S CLAIM. - — . ;■ AGAINST PROPERTY BEING 7 DUMPED.” The Greymoufh Magistrate’s Court, presided over by Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., was occupied for some little time yesterday morning in hearing a case which caused no small amusement to everyone present, excepting the two parties djrectfly connected with it Miss Johnston and Thomas Poschich were the principals in the case. Miss Johnston claimed the sum of £2 16s, which, she contended, was the value of certain goods owned by hei;, and which Poschich has consigned to the rubbish heap as being “absolutely worthless,”' when, during her absence. he had taken possession of the rooms in which plaintiff had been living. The defence was that the articles enumerated in the plaint sheet were worthless, and had therefore been consigned to the rubbish heap. Articles of the least value were placed in storage by defendant for Miss Johnston. Defendant was acting under authority as agent for his brother, the owner of the house. The goods discarded were a teapot, a frying pan, a kettle, a vinegar keg and several empty biscuit tins. Both parties were unrepresented by counsel, atid conducted their own cases.

Plaintiff in Aer Evidence stated that defendant had gone to the house in which sh'4' had been living and removed ’all, her property. The house belonged to defendant’s brother, and she had. rented a part of it. The articles m Jntioned in the statement of elaitm had’ been thrown by defendant into the rubbish heap, as according t‘o him, they were of no use. She was away at the time had been cleared out. Messrs Hannan and SeiMlou had sent her a notice to quit but it was not because she had oW al rent. She* had intended giving up the house but was first looking about her for a new business. Defendant had taken possession sometime during October. She had gone to see Hannan andScdd'on about the missing articles complained, of, but they said, they were only responsible for what was taken from the rooms. Defendant had. asked her on. Monday if she would take same thing on account. He said, the articles wen ' o;nly rubbish, but she contended. everything was in good order. She was to lO- /- week rent, but had not yet paid any because she did not know where de fefidant’s brothtr was. Defendant: You received a notice to quit, which stated that 1 had been Left in charge. That notice was giveb to you on 17th May. When did you last pay the rent? —The last time !•- □aw your brother, sometime in July. To the S.M.: 1 was in paitncTship in bushiess With the owner of the bouse. It was grocery •'business. The notice to quit was given on 15th May, but 1 stayed in the house witTiout paying rent until July as the partnership was not terminated until then. I was to pay 10/- a w; ok, providing 1 did not find a shop. 1 have paid three weeks rent, up till 20th August. Defendant: You broke a w’.ndow .in thik place during th. time m} brother was trying to get you out. — Not 1 had. to force it, and it was in doing that the window, was broken. My brother offered to let you m l *Q get your stuff out. Then we hud to bjring" the ilSerg} ant down. —No iyuu tlidn't I broiight the Sergeant.

1 say you sent Mr Revell down tG the dump, at least the place. Yes. Air Revell went down.

This teapot of yours: it had a brok ?!*. spout.—lt did not 1 bad only used it for a month and had given 7/6 fo> it. Well what about the frying pau.l i. only had that a month also. It cost 1/6 and hade been us "d very little. The SM.': You are claiming 4/6 fo l it; you evidently don’t'allow anything for wear and tear.

Plaintiff furthe.'r stated w that the copper Ikottle had be n a (present niven to her. She had used it- since Christmas. She- claimed 7/6 for it.

Defendant: Supposing I gave yo/u a k .ttlo would you value it. Plaintiff: 1 certainly wouldn’t value anything - from you, and it would not oe just as good. Defendant;- . You say there were K biscuit left there and you claim 1/6 each' fdr them-. Hqw do you come to vdaim that. Of cours'e Mr Poschich, you wouldn’t know anything about it. 1 bought them since your brother left, and they have to be returned to the merchants who, allow 1/6 refund per tin. They wor.3 also. Defendant: Mr Hill gets only 1/4 a tin.

Plaintiff When you are in business as long as 1 have been you will know something of what I am talking about- ’ ‘How long had you hud the vinegar jar?” was tne next question asked by defendant. Plaintig u-plied that tv had been hers for nine months. Siu had bought it k)ff her mother for 15/but that was nqt near the value of u It was worth easily £2. The Is it a demijohn? Wathere wicker work around it? Plaintiff: No! It was a four gallon jar ,without wicker work. This clos <- the case for ,p lain tiff. THE DEFENCE.

DefencLant in evidence stated tha«tn regard Vo the vinegar jar he had gone to Messrs Griffen and Smith, who taid that/ without it having wicker work they, would not take it. Th ‘ crockery had abotit an ir/'h broEeh off its spout, and in that condition, h; considered it of no value. He did not remember much about tne frying psm. The copper kettle looker to him as isif. it w.u- madfJ'of tin, but it was as blaclc as the fireplace. H< wouldn’t take anything like it to his hojne. There were only ten tins, and they had been dumped with the other articles. He admitted they weh worth 1/4 each. He had paid 12/6 to halve Miss Johnston’s goods shitted. To the Magistrate: HJ? did sot send these articles along with Miss Johnston’s other piopefty as he considered thej' we>re absolutely useless. He went to so Miss-Joiinatoin to try and get her ,to settle this out of court, but she would not do- that ,and told him to pay the annount claimed, into the court. Hr Hannan had notified h'»"r that they intended shifting her goocia. Plaintiff Why didn’t you-notify nr-' and give me a chan a i ■ shift m;own property? —I went, to Air Hannan and he said not to summons the lady, but the best way was shift them c ursolves, as you had received several iroticcs previously. Why didn’t you leave them outside then?—l couldn’t dump them out in

the streets of Greymouth very well. ‘‘You have a bach Mr Poschich ’ said, pl/aintiff, “and perhaps the tea pot, kettle and frying yan would be v> jry usefu’ there. They may not. b* in tUc crump aft.r all.” “I haven’t, a fireplace in my bach' answered defendant. “You took the privih gj.i of throwing my things out, because you considered they wetf - useless. They arc useful and valued by me. I am not. as wealthy as you. I have to work yet, while yo*u are retir' d. ”1 thought they were of no value' repli-kI defendant. “It i,s not for you ro think” sh<u back plaintiff, “it’s for nil < to throw them away if they lire useless.” Defendant stated |he could call witnesses to say tlv.it the stuff thrown away was useless, but the Magisirate .'aid th<ut would not help him. “Can I claim thi r* nt owing?’ ’ asked defendant. The Alagistrate replied that defendant had best consult lii- ; solicitor on that point. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. The Magistrate said the total amount claimed, was £2/16/-. It had been admitted by defendant that tb goods had been dumped by him. as ho considered they were of no vain-’. The plaintiff however, stated th-' y were of value ■ The teapot, although possessing a broken spout. possibly held a. sentimental value, and he would allow plaintiff 3/3, half the value placed upo|Ti iL The vin» gar keg appeared to have been used icr some time, it had no wicker-work, but wa>s worth something, and h< won!" allow 7y6 for JL Regarding the frying! pan, plaintiff said it was worth 4/6, and lie would allow that, amount. Di ifendant had said «ae copper kettle looked to be a tin ojne, but it appeared te have been in fair order, and plain tiff was "entitled to 5/- on it. Miss Johnston said she received 1/6 each for the biscuit tins, and def aidant admitted they were worth 1/4. Plaintiff said there were 15, but defendant said there were only ten. He wouh* allow 1/4 each for tent tins. Judgfent was given for plaintiff for a total o;f £l/13/7 with court costs 1.0/