MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17879, 27 August 1918, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CHRISTCHURCH. Mr S. E. M’Carthy, S.M., presided at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The Magistrate delivered reserved judgment in the case in which Albert Sip thorp (Mr Thomas) proceeded against John Cecil Tipping and Wanda Bessie Tipping (Mr Sargent), for £63 1525, moneys due under a bill of sale. The amount claimed was? not disputed, but Mr Sargent raised the point that’ plaintiff had no right to bring the action before the Magistrate’s Court, because the total amount duo was over £2OO, and was therefore subject for a Supreme Court action,. and that plaintiff could not legally split the amount, as ho bad done in this case. The Magistrate, after ■ reviewing the legal arguments at length, held that the contention on behalf _of tlie defendants was not tenable. Judgment was accordingly given for the plaintiff, with costs. Mr Sargent made an application for suspension of judgment against one of the defendants, John Cecil Tipping, on the grounds of illness. The application w r as refused. Judgment for the plaintiff by default, with costs, was given in each of the following cases:—Cooper and Duncan, Ltd. v. the Commercial Garage Co., £76 11s 4d; Weeks, Ltd. v. W. Spence, 7s 6d; Booth, Macdonald and Co. Ltd. v. Arthur S. Palmer, £1 17s Id; same v. Robert Muir, £22; Mary Rowley v, Mrs Taylor, £5; H. Matson and Co. v. W. L. Fowler, £sl os 6d; Harwell Quarries, Ltd. v. J. Barron, £1 8s 6d; A. S. Paterson and Co., Ltd. v. Edward George Gardiner, £6 2s 6d; Brown, Little and Co., Ltd. v. EL Arnold, £1 3s lOd; same v. W. J. Rowe, £4 18s 2d; Langford and Rhind v. Percival George Smith. £6 15s; Elizabeth Murray v. Harold J. C. Young, £3. Charles James (Mr Thomas) proceeded- against Herbert Samuel for £1 10s, damages which plaintiff alleged he had sustained through defendant running into him on Ins motor-bicycle while plaintiff was riding an ordinary cycle in Colombo Street, near Strickland Street, on May 27. Defendant conducted his own case. After evidence had been heard the Magistrate said that, in his opinion, as the defendant was overtaking the plaintiff, it was his duty to keep out of plaintiff’s way. Judgment would be for tho plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. Caroline Etheridvo proceeded against Watkins. Ltd. (Mr Gordon) for £5. wages alleged to he due. Plaintiff alleged that she had been dismissed without a full week’s notice, and that for the last week she had not been paid in full. For the defence, it was contended that nlaintiff had given a. week’s notice. (Defendant had paid £1 13 s 8d of the amount into Court. Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs.