MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 14, 14 December 1932, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CIVIL BUSINESS. At the Magistrate’s Court, yesterday, before ivir J. L. Stout, S.M., judgment was given for plaintiff in the following undefended cases:—AV. E. Jones and Co. (Air Petersen) v. Airs A. Jacobsen, claim £3O, costs £4 6s 6d; Commissioner of Taxes v. William Wilson Smith, costs only £1 sSfc,am« v _ lan Alitcliel, £142 Is 7d, costs £2 12s; Palmerston North City Council (Mr Meatyard) v. S. J. Havill, £3 16s od, costs £1 4s '6d; same (Air Cooper) v. W. A. Smith, £4 14s lOd, costs £1 4s 6d; same v. C. E. Petersen £6 Is 3d, costs £1 10s 6d; same v. 6! H. Peters, £l4 Os 2d, costs £2 14sH. L. Young, Ltd. (Air Grant) v. t’ H. Graham, £4 18s 7d, costs £1 3s 6d; B. H. Just (Air Gordon) v. C. E Cummerfield, 9s 6d, costs 8s; same v. J. Hart, £1 Os 9d, costs 9s; same v. AV. Jones and Son, £7 15s 3d, costs £1 13s 6d; same v. J. A. Natta, £8 15s 6d, costs £1 10s 6d; same v. J. R Overton £6 15s 3d, costs £1 10s 6d; Tucker Bros. (Air Hutchison) v. E. V. AVest, £1 10s, costs Bs. * JUDGAIENT SUAIAIONSES. D. P. Raine was ordered to pay AV. H. Tisdall, Ltd., the sum of £4 4s 6d forthwith, in default five days’ imprisonment. Rangi te Akuira was ordered to pay the Palmerston North City Council £9 Is by instalments of 10s per month, in default seven days’ imprisonment. AV. G. L. Simpson was ordered to pay J. Anderson £6l 15s by instalments of £1 per month, in default 28 days’ jnprisonment. CLAIM FOR POSSESSION. I A case was heard in which judgment was eventually given for plaintiff by consent. It was a claim made for, rent due and possession of a dwelling house. Air Laurenson, who appeared for defendant stated that the latter was a relief worker and had got behind with the rent. In reply to the Alagistrate, Air Petersen, who appeared for plaintiff, said that the amount owing was at least £3O. The Alagistrate said that if a man got behind with the rent —which was £1 per week—he could not expect to stay in the house. Air Laurenson pointed out that the rent had been 20s per week all through and that no reduction had been made in terms of the recent legislation. The Alagistrate: What does it matter if he does not pay? Mr Laurenson said it made the position look worse than it would otherwise be. Air Petersen said his client did not expect to get the rent, but he wanted possession of the house. The Alagistrate (to Air Laurenson): If 1 say that a relief worker is not to be turned out when he owes rent for one year, or two years, what is the position ? Mr Laurenson said that, if relief rates of pay were to be taken as a standard, rents would have to come down. . - . The Alagistrate replied that he recognised there was a hardship in these cases, but if a man were 12 months behind with 'the rent the owner was entitled to possession. Air Laurenson said defendant had always paid something every week. He was a perfectly honest man. The Alagistrate remarked that he recognised a lot of the unemployed were honest men, but a number of

them were also dishonest. Mr Laurenson asked that defendant be allowed a long period in which to give possession. llie Alagistrate: I will probably make it a month. Air Petersen pointed out that the property was subject to a mortgage. He was satisfied that defendant could not pay. Ihe Magistrate: AVhat is the amount of the mortgage? Air Laurenson : About £3OO or £4OO. He added that his client could pay about /s 6d a week. Air Petersen said the rental value was about 20s per week. The Magistrate said he would allow defendant a month in which to give possession which was about twice as long as usual. Defendant was order<vr eavc 011 or before January 10. Air Petersen said he would he willing to take judgment for £2O for rent and judgment was accordingly, by consent, entered for that amount and costs. DIVIDING FENCE. P. Stenberg (Air AlcLeavey) claimed from E. W. Lamerton (Air Gordon) the sum of £8 2s Id, being half the cost r e f ectin e. a fence between the lands of the plaintiff and defendant, such fence having been erected by and at the expense of plaintiff in Alay, 1928. R. Edwards, civil engineer, deposed that the fencing had beeri well done and the charge was reasonable. Plaintiff gave evidence that the fence had been in a dangerous condition and he had re-erected it about four years ago, relying on defendant to pay half the cost. Air Gordon said the defence was that a notice under the Fencing Act (had not been received by defendant. The Alagistrate said that the FencImg Act had been passed to enable a I neighbour to get an order for half the cost of a dividing fence. If the neighbour considered that a fence did not require re-erecting, the other party would have to go to the Court ana ,ask for an order. As this had not been done, plaintiff was non-suited and ordered to pay £1 Is costs.