MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15823, 23 July 1913, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, July 22.

(Before Mr 11. Y. Widdowson, S.JI.) Judgment by default was given in ihe following eases:—Gaudin and Marr (Mr Moore) v. John Cunningham (Grassmere), euum 4s, eosto on a iirov.ouij action; Mutual Stores (Ltd.) v. Robert Wickham (Auckland), c:uim £6 _ IDs, for goods ""supplied, witii costs (16s); Thomas Lauu (Air i\loorej v. Donald Aicliol (lapanui), clam £9 7s 6d; for timber supplied, with ousts (£1 8s 6d) ; John Cook (iur Moore) v. J. Heed, claim its 6d, lor boots supplied, with costs (ss); Newbury, Walker, Lrd. (Mr .Moore) v. J. 0. Ross (Waitati), claim £3 lfe, for goods supplied, with costs (10s); Stroriach, -Morris, ar/d Co. (Air Huiherford) v. Robert l'enny (Palmerston), claim ss, costs on a previous action; \Yalker Bros., Ltd. (Mr Moore) v. Louis Dillon Kelly (Wellington), claim £11. for drainage as per an estimate with costs (£1 10s 6d); Householders' Animal Directory (Mr Moore) v. Thomas 11. Gates (\\ elhngtoii), claim £4, for advertising in the directory, with costs (10s); <iaudin and Marr (Mr Moore) v. George Laws (Grassmere), claim £6, for goods suppikd, with testa (£l 4s 6:1); David Stewart fci ,n loorc l , v * John B - rr y claim £1 19s, with costs (5:'.); P. Ilavman and Co (Mr Moore) v. Richard Edward Owen (Christchurch), claim £7 7s, the amount of a dishonoured cheque, with costs (£l 3s) A Boundary Fcnee.-Mr Widdowson gave his reserved judgment in the case Philip Douglas Oarside (Mr E. A. Duncan) v. Kate Mason (Mr Irwin) on a claim for £5 ss, half cost of a boundary fence between the property of the plaintiff and that alleped to bo owned by the defendant. At the hearing Mr Irwin raised the points: (1) That the notice to fence was bad, in that it was purported to have been given by the owner, whereas under the Act only the occupier could give such a, notice; (2) That the defendant was not the oocupier of (he adjoining property because, although it had been left to her by will, she had declined to accept it, owing to the existing mortgages upon it; (3) that the plaintiff could not recover, because as a matter precedent to bringing the claim, he should first have had tlv subject in dispute brought before the court and settled under the Justicce of the Peace Ac!,-Mr Widdowson, after reviewing the evidence, triid that as to the first point it was a highlv technical one, and he was not callcd upon to decide it; and, ill regard to the second, there was not sufficient evidence to show that the defendant was an occupier, as was alleged. With respect to die t,hj'rd point, his Worship held that the matter in dispute should have been dccidcd under the Justices of the Peace Act. Plaintiff would therefore be nonsuited, with £1 Is costs for the defendant.