MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18723, 29 November 1922, Page 11

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, November 28. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases;-—G. E. Gloasop v. G. F. Woods (North-East Valley), £l, for milk; costs, 10s, Scott and Wilson v. John Thomas Vickers (Seacliff), I9s 4d, balance due; costs, 20s. Laidlaw and Gray (Ltd.) v. Charles • Reid (Invercargill), £2O 18s 9d, for ironmongery; costa (£3 Is). K. Jenkins v. Robert Murray (Invercargill), £1 11s 3d, for groceries; costs, 9s. Mackerras and Hazlett (Ltd.) v. John Christopher Cuff (Oamaru), £l2 12s id, for groceries ; costs, £2 14s. . . Thomas Simon v. Adolphus Outline, claim to recover a tenement in George street lot to defendant for 17s 6d a week, of which there was owing £l4 17s 6d. Plaintiff thcieforc claimed £l7 17s 6d and possession of the tenement.—Defendant did not appear, end Mr Forrester (Downio, Steward, and Payne) represented plaintiff. In the absence of defendant, after evidence had been given, his Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs (£3 Is), and made an order for possession. John Walker v. The Mayor, Councillors, and Citizens of Dunedin, claim £SO 10s in respect of damages caused to a taxi through a. collision with a tramcar, alleged to have been negligently driven along Princes street, between Rattray and Dowling streets, on February 13.—Mr Lang appeared for plaintiff and Mr Ramsay for defendant. —Mr Ramsay made a preliminary objection. He contended that the court had no jurisdiction. Section 65 of the Magistrates’ Court Act, 1908, had not been complied with; that was to say, that the abode of defendant’s had not been placed in the plaint note. It was a technical objection. As soon as he (Mr Ramsay) had become aware of the omission he had notified his friend of it. Counsel went on to refer the Magistrate to a number of cases.—Mr Lang contended that there was a distinction in the cases cited. If the statement of claim were defective, which ho contended was not true, defendant had had an opportunity of discovering it three months ago, and having failed to give notice of intention to so defend, it must be taken as an indication of his intention to waive objection. Counsel quoted a number of authorities.—His Worship said the point was a technical one. The address of defendant must be put in the plaint note, and was not put in in the present case. A defendant body being a corporate body, the address should be given. It was suggested that these had been waived, but he could not accept that. Ho had no jurisdiction to hear the action, and the case must be struck out. —Mr Ramsay’s application for costs, amounting to £3 6s, was allowed.