MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17327, 29 May 1918, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Tuesday, May 28. (Before Mr H. A. Young, S.M.) Judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default, m the following cases:—William Hastie v. James Coutta, claim £1 Is 2d, amount due on account stated (costs lls)- £ e ™? n^ om , Grahanl v - T - Campbell (ot I. Miller), claim £1, due on account stated icosts 7s); Bruce Railway Company v Mary Reimer. claim 3s 6d, goods supplied (v^ tS %j n ll,0 ™* 8 Felthen v. Howard Wilson (Wellington), claim £5 ss, for eoodfl B A U .? pl i ed T (oa * ts £1 * 6d > : Bra y Bn£. v. Alfred James Boyce (Otekaieke), claim 7s 6d, for goods supplied (costs 16s); John Cassilis Seelye v. T. Hickey, claim £2 2a 6d, balance due on goods supplied (coste 10s ; Stone, Son end Co. v. Robertson and Co. (Levin), cknn £1 10s, for advertising (costs ss); same v. Daniel Falvey (Chnstchurch), claim £5, for goods sui> plied (costs £1 0s 6d). A "Fly-disturber Suit."-Several hours were taken up in bearing the complicated electrical case m which Frederick Joseph O Neill. carrying on business as the British Electrical Engineering Company sued Thos. i>. /Uarkson, a fishmonger, carrying on business at South Dunedin, for 14s for work done m repairing a motor used in his shop ■as a fly-disturber." The defendant however, counter-claimed £14 8s 3d, on the jrround that on November 24, 1917, he purchased from plaintiff a Dtimore motor for H J? , w , arra , n ted suitable for driving a fly-disturber" in defendant's fish shop, and not. to run hot. The motor did not, as alleged, come up to the warranty, and enteiled expenses for repairs; and, owing to the hrotinjr of the motor, defendant and his-wife had their hands burned eo severely nHnni°f r +1™ W " e ™able to -Mr W i he, i I^ sl » css . «nd lost customers. of evidence occupied the court untH § ?'!2U " n u h ? d not deluded thon-The further hearing of the case stands adjourned for a week. «"«is aa