MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18424, 9 December 1921, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, December 8. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases: —F. and R. Woods v. Charles Little (Wairio, .£3l 7s 9d, balance of goods (costs £1 3s 6d); Butterworth Bros. v. Richard P. Gray (Christchurch), £36 6s 9d, on a dishonoured promissory note (costs £4 la 6d); A. E. Usherwood and Co. v: the Commercial Garage Co. (Nelson), £139 7s sd, for goods (costs £2 10s); Murray, Roberts, end Co. v. George Wm. Bayne (Anderson’s Bay), £9 14s 6d, balance for goods (costs £2 7s 6d); Cooke, Howlison, and Co. v. J. M'Auliffc (Timaru), £7 17s 6d, on a dishonoured cheque (costa £1 lls 6d); Bruce Railway and Coal Co. v. Oliver M'Auley, £2 19s 3d, on an account agreed upon (cost 23a 6d); Martha Douglass v. William Galbraith, jun. (Hampden), £1 3s, for work done (costs 8s); O. M, Smith and Co. v. Leslie Henry Tozer (Ashburton), £3 8s lid, for goods (costs 8s); Johnston, Sons, and Co. v. Frederick George Bullivant (Napier), 16s, balance for books (coats 8a). Thomas Maxwell v. Thomas Wintrup, claim £7 4s on a judgment summons. —Mr Irwin, who appeared tor plaintiff, staled that the matter arose out of the sale of a cow, the proceeds of which had been retained by defendant.—Defendant, who was represented by Mr Forrester, stated that he had been in partnership and had agreed to “whack the profits.' He supplied the brains. —His Worship mad© an order that defendant pay the amount due forthwith, in default 10 days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended so long as defendant paid 10s a week. Henry Nind v. F. Gordon. —Claim for the possession of a tenement in Bedford street, St. Clair, and £l3 12a damages.—The particulars were that defendant had leased some tea rooms with a tenement adjoining. The rent was £lO a month, and on defendant defaulting in payment of rent the Repatriation Department took over the business, and ran it for a time. The department paid the rent to September 18. In October of this year notice to quit was served.—An order for possession on or before the 15th insf. was made, and judgment given for plaintiff for £l3 12s {with costs, £3 3s). Ophelia Faulkner v. James Kirkland (Tuatapere).—Claim for £23 10s for the board, lodging, and clothing of defendant’s two children for 14 weeks, at 17s 6d per week each, from June 17 to September 23.—Mr O'Shea appeared for plaintiff and Mr W. L. Moore for defendant.—After evidence his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs (£6 ss). . Margaret Cassidy Laurie v.-Margaret Ann M'Kinnon.—Claim for the possession of a tenement in Albany street, lot by plaintiff to defendant at 12s a week. Notice to quit had been given, and had expired on October 27. Plaintiff also claimed £3 for rtftt arid £2 8s for mosrie profits.—Judgment was given , for possession of the premises, and for £5 Bs, with costs £2 6s. (A certain amount had been paid into court,) Charles Vennall v. J. Arthur, claim for possession of premises in Crown street, North-East Valley, and also for £8 5s for tfent, clue from September 1 to November .17, at 15s a week.—Mr A. G. Neill appeared for plaintiff, and Mr J. B. Callan for defendant. —Mr Neill stated that on May 10 plaintiff proceeded to the residence of defendant and gay© verbal notice to. quit. He (counsel* relied upon this notice as being correct Mr Widdowson; The only question is, was it given on the right date?—Mr Callan: X admit that notice was given on May 10, but 1 do not admit that the notice is still in existence. —Mr Neill, continuing, said that later plaintiff came to an arrangement with defendant by which lie was to continue in possession of the dwelling-house for six months. He (Mr Neill) based the claim on the verbal notice of MSy 10, which was quite in order, and which he contended was not waived by lapse, of time.—Charles Vennall (plaintiff) gave /evidence in which he asserted that defendant had threatened him. He had procured another house for defendant at 15s a week. The rent paid by defendant for his (plaintiff’s) house was 22s td. Witness wanted the house for his own use. He had' one child. Defendant had lour. He (plaintiff) was now living’ in rooms.—To Mr Callan : There was' no one els© in the rooms occupied by witness. He remembered saying that he would forgo some rent if defendant would get out on a- certain date. A statement was made that defendant objected to taking his new furniture into a house in which the borer had obtained a hold.—Mr Callan suggested that plaintiff might be nonsuited a,t this stage. He had not put his proceedings in order, and was' not entitled to judgment, The position was’ that a house had been lot in the ordinary way, and a new purchaser said the tenant was to give it up .and leave at a month’s notice. That might or might not be good. What immediately followed wiped the slate. Counsel went on to refer to irregularities that had taken place in a process of law, and said that this was an inartistic attempt to set matters up again. Prom no point of view had:, plaintiff i got himself into a legal position, to get’an order. The rent had been paid into court that morning. He, did not see how it was going to be proved that the notice reached l defendant before the froceedings were begun.—His Worship non-suited plaintiff, with costs (£1 19s). Mary Inglis v. Alice Tait, claim for the recovery of the possession’ of a tenement in Stuart street, let to defendant at a weekly rental of 2as a week ((he place was apparently at the corner of Stuart and Smith streets). —Mi- W. L. Moore appeared for plaintiff, and Mr J. B. Callan for defendant.—Mr Moor© said that Miss Inghs let the house a month or two before October, 1920. When it was let she understood that defendant intended to reside in the place and to take in boarders or let rooms. She let a portion of the place to Mr Bates. The tenancy was extended for a year—that was until October of this year. About October Miss Inglis went for her rent, and said she would take possession.—Evidence was given by, plaintiff, and Mi Callan. then called Mrs Tait; the defendant.—Mr Callan said plaintiff had riot brought, herself within any statutory provisions entitling her to an order.—Mr Widdowson; Does this .properly bora© within the Act? It is not a dwolling-houSe. She is riot Jiving in it.— Mr Callan suggested that it was surely a place of business, —Mr Moore: The Act wag never ix.tended to protect this class of case at all.—After a reference to the Statutes, Mr Callan said they did not say that a dwelling-house must be the dwelling-house of the tenant. —Finally his Worship made an order for possession on or before the 22nd inst., with costs (£2 Is).