Magistrate's Court

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 7106, 15 March 1933, Page 11

Magistrate's Court

OAR COLLISION CLAIMS In the Palmerston North. Magistrate ’e Court yesterday Mr. J. L, Stout, S.M., was engaged hoaring a civil action in respect of a collision between two cars which occurred at the intersection of Ngata and Featherstone streets on the evening of August 18, 1932. 'i'ho parties were C. E. Taylor (Mr. Cooper) and L. and M. McKenzie (Mr. Ongley). Taylor claimed £7 15s 6d from the McKenzies and the latter counter-claimed for £5 19s, both amounts being for damage sustained by the cars. After hearing evidence his Worship said ho did not feel inclined to blame cither driver. The circumstances were that McKenzie was about to drive into the High School gateway and had to pull up suddenly because some schoolboys were standing on the culvert. But .for the fact that tho boys were there, ho would have been clear of the road. It might be suggested that Simpson, the driver of Taylor’s car, had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident but one would not expect a car making for an open gateway to pull up suddenly and remain sticking 10 or 12 feet out into the road. Each car owner, his Worship thought, should pay his own damages. No costs would be allowed. Claim For Kay, Etc. H. W. Gr. Ashworth, farmer, of Palmerston North (Mr. Cooper) claimed from Ernest James Sheppard, farmer, of Palmerston North (Mr. Ongley), £4B 13s allegedly due for goods (hay, etc.) supplied. The debt was not disputed but defendant claimed that Ashworth had supplied the goods knowing that plaintiff could not pay at the time and could not pay now. His only hope of paying was in getting a reduction of rent through the Commission. His Worship reserved decision, expressing the opinion that if defendant got a reduction in rent he should pay the bill. Question of Rent Arrears, .

Peter James Goodwin and Thomas William Goodwin, farmers, of Rongotea (Mr. Ongley), claimed £ll6 10s 4d from the N.Z. Dairy Farmers’ Union (Mr. Cooper) in respect of rent owed by James Arthur Rendell as tenant. Mr. Ongley stated that the Dairy Union had supplied Roudell with stock, but under an agreement, the Dairy Company had to bo given one month’s notice of any failure by Rendell te pay his rent. During that month the Dairy Union could either remove the stock or pay the rent. Mr. Cooper said the Dairy Union acknowledged having to pay the arrears but the point in dispute was the amount to be paid by the Dairy Union. The Mortgagors’ Commission had been asked to give relief to Rendell and the Dairy Union, should have the advantage of the reduction, if any.

Mr. Ongley could not agree with this submission, stating that the Dairy Union’s contract was to pay what Rendeil owed and the Commission could not affect the position. Rendell’s application for relief had not been filed till February 9, whereas the notice to the Dairy Union was dated December 22. All the Commission could do was to remit a certain portion of the arrears out it could not alter the amount that was owing. His Worship thought the matter should be held over till the decision of the Supreme Court was learned in respect of the report of the Commission on Rendell’s application for reduction in rent. There would be some indication then as to what was a fair rent,. If plaintiffs got what the Supreme Court considered a fair rental, they would not bo losing anything—the Dairy Union should not have to pay more than what was a fair reistal under the conditions prevailing at the present time. It might even be that the Supreme Court, knowing the Dairy Union

would be paying the rent, might fix an amount different from what it would, were Rendell paying himself. The case was adjourned sine die.