MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17299, 26 April 1918, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thursday, Apbil 25. (Beforo Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.)

Judgment for plaintiffs by default was given in the following oases: —M'Callum and Co. v. Anguis Archibald M'Kay, cilaim 4s, witnesses expenses in a claim previously made; Ushorwood and Co. v. Stanley Jones (Fairlie), _ claim £12 lis 9d, for goods supplied, with costs (15s); Hallenstein Bros' (Ltd.) v. Edward Smith (Waihola), claim lis costs; D.I.C. (Ltd.) v. Kato Small (Luittsden), claim 5s 6d, balance of oosts owing on a former claim; D.S.A. (Ltd.) v. Geonge Ensor (Weddenburn), claim 16s 8d on an account stated, with costs (ss)';' Wright, Stephenson, and Co. (Ltd.) v. W Duncan (Kaitangata), olaiui £9 13s 6d, for stock supplied and delivered, with costs (£1 7s 6d); A. and J. M'Farlane (Ltd.) v. Joseph M. Clark (Port Chalmers), claim £6 3s Bd, for goods supplied, with oosta (£1 3s 6d); Margaret Aslin v. Walter James Marr (St. Leonards), claim £29 15s, money due on a mortgage, with costs (£2 12s). Judgment Summons. Mary Ann Fail-ley applied for an order against William Bannatyno for tliQ payment of £11 12s 6d.—The magistrate made an onler for payment forthwith, with oosts (15s), in default 14 days' imprisonment. G. R. Scott applied for an order against Harry Vernon for the payment of £2 8s sd.—Defendant gave evidence that he was unable to pay. as he already had an order of the court against him and his wages wore absorbed by rent and other expenses.—The application was refused.

A Claim for a Bull.—Donald Roid and Co. (Ltd.) v. Arthur Joyce.—This was a claim for £2 4s lid for a bull sold to tho defcntlant at public auction.—The defendant repudiated tho debt, on the alleged ground that the animal liad been guaranteed sound. —Evidence was given for the plaintiffs by Mr M'Kinnon to tho effect that no guarantee was given, rind also that tho defendant took the bull away and kept it for two months, when he sold it-.—Judg-ment was given for tho amount claimed, with costs (£3 Os Id). A Printing Claim.—The Caxton Printing Company sued Barton Bras.' Cirous Proprietary Company for £55 7s 3d, for printing done in 1915.—Th0 defence was that tho present firm was not the original Barton Bros., but that Mrs Barton was tho lessoo of tho business from an liotolkcoper in Wellington, to whom Mr Baa-ton sold tho cirous prior to his (tho hitter's) doath. Mrs Barton had been served until a summons, but she had not contracted the debt, nor had anyone connected with tho present firm dono so.—Evidence in support of the claim was given by Patrick L. Ritchie.—Matilda Barton produced a copv of tho agreement entered into by her with Percy of Wellington, for tho lease of tho business. Her firm liad not contracted any debt with tho Caxton Printing Company.—The Magistrate held that tho partnership of Barton Bros, prior to t.ho assets being disposed of wr liable for this amount. Mrs" Barton had not incurred any outsido liability through carrying on a cirous trndar tho old name of Barton Bros., and slw wna not liable. Judgment would bo for tho defendant, but. if counsel for plaintiff ohoao, ho could olcct to aocopt a nonsuit.—Tho nonsuit was accordingly catered up, -witfi ooste (£5 7ej).