MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11049, 1 March 1898, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, February 28. (Before Mr B. H. Carew, S.M.)

Jessie Anderson v. Daniel Smith.—Claim £3 3», on a judgment summons.—After evidence, his Woranip held that defendant had had means to pay the debt since the date of judgment, and made an order calling on him to pay the amount, with costs, by weekly instalments of. 225, in default six days'imprisonment. .;...': A. R. Falconer y. James A. Shand (Auckland).— Claim £6- tis,, for goods supplied.—Mr Finch appeared for the plaintiff, for whom, judgment was given default, with costs (26s 6d). * Walter A. Scott v. Robert Aitken (Riveradale).—Claim ,£l7, for "hire of a bicycle.—Mr Moore appeared'for plaintiff, for whom judgment. w*s given by default, with costs (43s 6d). Thomson, Fox, and Go. v. James M'Donald (Ashburtou).—Claim £18 8s 6d, for goods supplied.—Judgment was given for plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with'costs (?5s 6d). R. Jamiesbn and Co.' y. Ernest Robson (Gore):— Claim £2' I9s 9d,for goods" supplied.—Judgment was given'for plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with costs (6s). - ..■-■■■ John Moloneyv. Andrew' Melville.—Claim for the half-cost of a dividing fenca on a section at North-East Harbour.—Mr Sim appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr Woodhouse for the defendant.—ln this case the point was whether defendant was liable to contribute the half-cost of a dividing | fence erected'under the following circumstances: Defendant was the mortgagee of the propertyi and had bought it in through the registrar and then leased it for a term of 10 years to a tenant, with the right of purchase. For the plaintiff it was contended that defendant was an 'occupier within the'meariihß of "the Fencing Act, and was therefore liable to contribute half the cost''of the fence. Counsel contended that the words of the . section—" any person who in any manner purchases or acquires any land or any estate or interest, therein "—were applicable to the defendant.—Mr Woodhouse held that his client was not the occupier of the section, and that the proper person to sue was the tenant.—His Worship reserved judgment. ,