MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 2 June 1930, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THIS MORNING’S SITTING At the Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M., Russell Felix Biggs appeared charged with failure to comply with a maintenance order in • respect of a child, being in arrears £4O. Mr W. V. Rout, who appeared for defendant, said Biggs had been out of work for about four months, He had a job to go to and £l2 owing in Wages. The accused was remanded to appear on 7th July bail being allowed self in £SO. Judgment by default was given in the following civil, action: Herby Brown v. Amelia Lindstrom, £lO 16s sd, costs £2 6s 6d. RESERVED DECISION

Reserved decision was given in the defended civil action, J. G. Ingram and Co., Ltd., (Mr H. Brodie) v. J. E. Johnson (Mr S. H. Moynagh), a claim for £l6 7s 6d, balance alleged to he owing under purchase of a second-hand motor car and for goods supplied and work done on a rewinding armature. Defendant counterclaimed for £25 on the grounds that at the time of the sale of the car it was represented by the plaintiffs managing salesman, Mr Ornstein, that the car was suitable for the defendant’s wife to drive, and that this was made a verbal term of the written agreement.

The Magistrate, after reviewing the evidence and stating the law on the points, said that the defendant must fail on the counterclaim both on fact and law. He added that Mr Ornstein gave his evidence fairly and clearly, and that any guarantee was highly improbable in connection with such an old car. He further said that Mrs Johnson’s evidence conflicted with her own correspondence. The Magistrate further stated that he was satisfied that the plaintiffs claim in connection with the armature was substantiated. He said there were other reasons which he need nob mention why the defendant must fail.

Judgment was given for plaintiff against defendant for both claim and counterclaim, with costs, and witnesses’ expenses. Costs were also allowed plaintiff on defendant’s application for change of venue, and on the taking evidence at Takaka.

In reserved judgment in a defended civil case Maurice Maxwell v. Allan Bogle for damages £24 18s Bd, damages to a motor cycle, judgment was given for plaintiff for £l9 18s Bd, costs £5 15s. In a counter-claim for £4 0s 6d judgment was also given for plaintiff. Tile Magistrate said he had visited the locality of the accident and was satisfied that one of the cycles was on the wrong side of the road. The driver of Bogle’s cycle was an inexperienced driver.