MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18540, 28 April 1922, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, April 27. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases:—Scoular and Chisholm, Ltd. v. William Martin, £ll 7a 3d, balance for goods (costs £2 19s); Ernest Wood Meesent v. Melville .Campbell (St. Kilda), £ll 13a lid, balance for drapery (costs £2 16s); Brace. Windle, Blyth, and Co., Ltd. v. T. Hainley (Balfour), £8 Is 6d for goods (costs £3 Os Od); A. L. Faulkner v. Wm. M'Donald. claim for possession of a tenement in Leith street, and for rent', order for possession on May 11, and judgment for £9 Bs, with costs £2 10s; J. T. Smith v. E. Lane (Waitahuna), £lO on an account stated (costs £2 6s); Stone, Son, and • Co. v. Lewis and Co. (Hamilton), £2 13s 6d for advertising (costa 23a 6d); same v. Charles Hamilton Johnston (Napier), £1 15s for advertising (coats 9s); Reid and Cray, Ltd. v. Joseph Scales (Maronau, Ashburton), £62 16a 4d, balance for gooda (costs £5 la 6d): A. Roberts and Sons v. John Stephen Collins (Queenstown), £l9 8s 6d for work done and goods supplied (costs £2 14s); Thco. Allen v. John M'Kechnie, £5 for money lent (coiats 25s 6d); Stono, Son, and Co. v. Althea Brewer (Wanganui), 18s 6d for a directory (coats 8s); John F. Cork v. Myrtle Heath (Roxburgh), judgment for costs (15s). A. and J. Watt v. Arthur Laurence.— Claim, £4 10s for work done. —Mr J. .S. Sinclair appeared for plaintiff and Mr xs. S. Irwin for defendant. —Mr Sinclair stated that plaintiffs were furniture manufacturers .and received instructions to repair and re-cover a couch. The work was done and subsequently it was discovered that the leather had not turned out satisfactorily and plantiffs at their own expense did what work was necessary. Defendant was then quite satis fied, and up to the previous day plaintiff had no knowledge whatever that defendant was not satisfied with the job. Plaintiffs had on several occasions requested payment, and been actually promised payment. All this time no objection was made to the work by defendant. —Evidence was given to the effect that the leather was not guaranteed, that the leather was not bad at the time it was put on the couch, and that the job was a good one.—Mr Irwin said that it had been suggested to refer the job to anybody in the trade to say whether it was a good one or not, but the suggestion was not agreed to. A little time after the couch came home it began to develop serious symptoms of dbcay. The couch was sent hack to plaintiffs. They offered to allow defendant 10s off the account or to have the couch sent back to be re-covered. They recovered it and sent it back to defendant. It was clear it could not bo used in conjunction with other parts of the suite.—Mr Bartholomew said that Mr Watt’s attitude seemed to bo that h© was not responsible for the quality of the material. The fact that Mr Watts was nob the manufacturer was beside the question. There was an implied undlertaking that the material .supplied should be reasonably fit for the work, and it was obvious that the material was poor. He would non-suit plaintiff, which would give him an opportunity, if he could come to terms with defendant, to complete the job. Plaintiff would be nonsuited with costs (£1 Is). Arthur Annishaw v. Georg© Abomethy.— Claim for the (wssession of a tenement fn Oxford street. —Judgment was given for the possession of the tenement by May 18, with costs of proceedings (£1 8s).