MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15566, 25 March 1914, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MAORI AND MOTOR-CAR. J t V JOURT NO JURISDICTION.-

Thr case in which an elderly Maori, namt d Hori Paerimui (Orakei), was sued 1 by Si ott Bros, for £179, the balance of an account for a motor-car, said .to ha** been purchased from the plaintiff com-' pany, before It. C. C. Kettle, S.M., for the third time, at the Magistrate's Ci rnrt yesterday. Mr. A. Mi Gould app eared on behalf of the plaintiff company, jind Mr. F. J. Stilling represented the From evidence previously given on behalf of the pi'aintiff company, it appeared that defendant purchased the car -for £350. on May 28, 1609, paying £100 on account, and leaving the balance of £250 on mortgage urn ler a bill of sale, with, interest at the rate of 6 per cent. Defendant failing to pa the interest, the car was put up to am tion by the plaintiff company, the mani.vger of which bought it in again for £120. , The amount originally claimed from defendant was £266 13s, but the plaintiffs admitted a set-off. and reduced the claim to i'l79, which included' £10 10s in respect of i "osts of the auctions sale, and the cost of -our tyres, said to have been sold to defendant. It was stated that the first pun chaser of the car was a man named Cox, who obtained it from the company on th e hire-purchase system, and, being unable X o keep up the payments, effected a transfei of the car to Hori Paerimui. At the resumed hearing there was & somewhat prolonged argument between Mr. Gould and the magistrate as to the question of the Court's jurisdiction in the case. His Worship pointed out that the original claim was for £266 13s, which put the matter out of his jurisdiction, as he could not deal with claims for & larger amount than £200. Mr. Gould said that in the plaintiff company's statement of claim there was an admission of a counter-claim, in respect of the buying in of - the car by plaintiff company at auction. --The* plaintiff company admitted that in regard! to this transaction, they were responsible to the extent of £120. That, . he ■ submitted, reduced their claim to an • amount) that brought it within the jurisdiction of the Court. - v His Worship ruled that there was-no evidence of a counter-claim, though MrGould had rather ingeniously- advanced: that argument in order to bring the matter - within the jurisdiction of the Court. The evidence upon which plaintiffs; relied ,as to the sale of the car by auction could not be accepted, because what was -treated! as a sale was not a sale, at all, inasmuch as the .mortgagee bought in the' car! As the law stood, the mortgagee' was not "(entitled to do anything of the kind. 1 : Any sale of mortgaged goods or chattels ifriififc be effected through the Registrar-of 'the Supreme Court. The mortgagee's only . legal right was'to re-sell the car, and give the defendant credit for the re-sale. Thers being no evidence of a re-sale, and consequently no evidence of a' .count he ruled that the Court had no jurisdiction . in the matter. .

I ' JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.. . | Orders for immediate payment, subject to various periods of suspension wera j made in the following judgment summons j cases : —Mercer Company, Ltd., : v» Sydney. DromgfxJl (Wellington),. £3 „ 4i: Madge Sutton v. Gerald Hon»niv(N^winM;ket] ? . £3 Ss; Frank Martin Winsk-ne v. A. Bishop (Whatawhata.), £15 lis. 4d;,-S.. Roberts v. A- W. Hay and M. Hay (City), £9 16s 6d; J. J. Craig, Ltd., v. William Brown (Epsom), and, Harry Bowman (Dominion Road),* £82 Is 3d-; Cecil Ernest Abbott v. Lionel Cohen (City). £9 lis. 9d; L. D. Nathan and Company, Ltd.. v. Ken Campbell (Tairtia), £52 6a Id; T. and H. Cook, Ltd., -v." 3. M Salmon (Wellsford), £2 13s 9d; Agjres; Jane Heron v. . Jack Cooper (Waihi), £6 , 16s; D- Garrick v.'• Rhoda" Griffiths -{3> , Kopuru), £4 4s sd; L. D. Nathan.Ltd.% - v. N, B. Lusk (Te Kuiti), £3 13s 6d ; Percy Eden v. W. . Lahwood ■ (Palmerston • North), £1; G. Kronfeld, Ltd., v. 1L C 1 ' Hadfield, £3 17s; Heald Killip and Com* • | pany v. Howard Nattress (Napier), £90; . t . ; Abel Dykes, Ltd.. v. E. Thompson (City), : £2 ' 19s; Harry Havr v. Fred W. Duval • ; (Greymouth), £11 14s . lOd; ~; > Te,.\iAn»f j Furnishing Company v. Richard Matthew.; i, Walker (Newmarket)* £8- 15$; : -. W. .H< ; ; Haslett v. Hilda Miles (Eden £6 17s 6d; The National Bank of Neyr Zealand, Ltd., v. E. C.' Ashwin , (Miaim-" , re'wa). £23 13s 6d; T. S. Morrin*. Ltd., v.. . Mathews and Aldred (Te* Puke), £27 '6s 'fidj. Frank Martin Winstone v.: Samuel Beehre (Whangarei), £9 9s Ud ; Edith E. ■ Casley v. Victor Rickit (Pukekohe), '£3 15s; Cruickshank, IJlilier and Company-; vl ; William S. Wilkinson . (City),. £l"Bs<Sd; ' John Patterson and Son y,">WJ McKea ■ (City), £2 ; Is; the Kauri Timber -Cony pany, Ltd., v. Reginald Somen;ille. Aickin ,- (Otahuhu), £17 Is 9d; Evelyn's Horse Food Proprietory v. Field. borne), £15 12s 6d; same v. . :E. A. ■ Little-• wood and Company," Ltd. (Ohaknne), £6. * ss; W. and H. Smale v. F. L- McDonangh (Takapuna), £4 lis 9d; W. R; 1 Dick and Company v, G. Carter (Ofor<*( hanga), £2 9s; Isaiah Fellcwes v. H; WX . iHfflman (Parnell), £5; J. Henderson and Company v. E. Atkins (Devonport) ,• £4 J3s , 10d; I. A. Bock v. Mm ; " MunrodTRemuera). 15s Id; John Andrew and Sons , v. Frederick Swift (Onehunga), 10s; •Arthur Cleave and Company; v. Chari'asGrayland (Wellington), '£5; same v. George Leslie (Te Aiohaf,' £1" 13s; 1 Hutchinson Brothers v.- Fred ' Workman 1 (Te Aroha), £4 2s; Walter Lambourne v.< Albert E. Lyford (Te Puke), '£5 Kte lid?" John Burns and Company, Ltd., v. Ernest •F. Stewart (Waitara), £4 14s-ld ; *ame v. W. Branson (Rotorua), £18: _ 18s -2d Brown and Stewart v. *- Benjamin -£»; Williams (Dargaville), £16 0s 6d.