MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18322, 12 August 1921, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, August 11. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.)

Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in th© following oases:—C. E. Napier (executor of will of Martha K. Knott) v. J. P. Fraser, claim £25 Os lid, balance duo on a promissory not© (costs £3 ss); Mary E. Burrell v. Thomas M. Muir , (Wellington), claim £lO, on a dishonoured cheque (costs £2 6s); Nimmo and Blair v. Robert O’&ullivan (Blenheim), claim £4 13s lOd, for supply of beans (costs £1 4s 6d); William Farquhur (Stirling) v. William Wilson” (Brighton), claim £lO 17 9d. on account stated (costs £3 3s Cd); W. H. Morrison v. John Forrester (Maclennan), claim £24 Be, for board and residence (costs £3 13s); Guthrie, Bowron, and Co. v. James N. M'Arthur (Gore), claim £73 18s 9d, for leather grindery (costs £4 16s 9d). Judgment Summonses. —A. F. Cheyno and Co. (Mosgiel) v. W. Gibson (Ravensbourne), claim £3 IGs sd, balance due for drapery supplied.—Order for payment of the claim, with costs (15s), or five days’ imprisonment. ——Callan and Gallaway v. Alex. Clydesdale, claim £3 7s, for professional services.—Order for payment of claim, with costs (6s), or three days’ imprisonment. F. and F. M’Lcan v. Adolphus Curline, claim £4, balance due for clothing supplied.—Order for payment of claim, with costs (6s), or four days’ imprisonment.— —Mary Downes v. William Grant, claim £2 15s 6d, for board.—Order for payment of claim, with costs (6s), or three days’ imprisonment. Tenancy Case. —Malcolm Stevenson (Mr W. G. Hay) claimed' from John Philp (Mr W. L. Moore) possession, of No. 7 Thomas Bums street and £5 9s 9d for rent and mesne profits.—Mr Hay said the house was a fourroomed one. Stevenson was a contractor, and it had been arranged that one of his men (Mead) should be brought back from Sydney on condition that plaintiff found a house for him. Counsel explained that plaintiff had found, a five-roomed house for defendant at £1 a week, and now wished to put his own man into defendant’s house. Defendant was paying 13s 6d for the house.— Plaintiff gave evidence on these lines, explaining that his carter had gome over to Sydney to see his widowed mother. He added that a carter’s wages were £4 7s 6d a week and a plasterer’s 18s a day.—Mr Moor© pointed out that plaintiff had bought the house knowing well that it was not easy to turn out a tenant. Defendant could not pay £1 a week in rent. He had been in the house for 11 years and had made certain improvements to it. Counsel suggested that plaintiff might have offered th© other house to his own man instead of turning defendant out of his home.—Defendiant said he had put 20 or 30 loads of soil into the place, had. painted the house, and tiled the sink. He had offered to pay 15s for the house, whiou was what his neighbours in a similar houoo (which was also owned by plaintiff) paid. He explained that his wage® did! not average more than a carter’s owing to bad weather and lost time. A five-roomed house was too big for them. —His wife also gave evidence. — The Magistrate said th© question was whether there was any undue hardship on the tenant which would be an answer to the proceedings. It was not a case of inability to get another house, but rather that defendant was not in a position to get another that would be anything like as advantageous to him as the present one. It was not undue hardship merely to lose a favourable position and nave to take another house at the current rates, because rents wore governed by Statute. Defendant’s financial circumstance® were not so restricted as in many other cases, and lie had only one child dependent on him. Ho had no right to sit down in the house at the expense of the other workman, whoso circumstances were not so good.—An order was made for possession from August 25, and judgment given for £5 9s 9d, with costs (£1), and solicitor’s fee (£1 Os Gd).