MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19261, 27 August 1924, Page 11

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, August 26. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Undefended Cases.—Judgment was given for plaintiffs, with costs, in the following undefended cases; —D.I.C. v. L. R. Williams (Calloway), claim £4 6s lid, for goods supplied (costs 27s 6d) ; O. M. Smith and Co. v. Johnston Bros. (Eketahuna), claim £ll 17s Bd, for goods supplied (costs £2 4s); Dr C. S. Murray v. E. Fitzpatrick, claim £4 18s 6d for professional services (costs 29s 6d); Mrs Margaret Fo.x v. William Shaw, claim £9 10s, for recovery of rent and mesne profits (costs 30s Cd) R. Fcrgilsion and Co. v. Thereso Foughrcy, Gaim £2 13s ICd, foT goods supplied (costs 2.5 s 6d) ; George. Proctor v. Thomas Rodgers, claim £2 9s, for goods supplied (costs 25s 6d) ; D. Edwards v. Thomas Rodgers, claim £6 13s 7d, for milk supplied (costs 30s 6cl); Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Ltd.) v. Charles Harding (Tawanui), claim £1 its 3d, for goods supplied (costs £1 8s). A Consignment of Hour.—Distributors (Ltd.) (Mr J. L. Sinclair) proceeded against Mary Minn, baker, for. the sum of £3l for flour sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. —Mr A. P. Alloo represented the defendant. —James Fox, who was stated bv the ' plaintiff to have delivered the goods, said that it was his duty to deliver flour, pollard, etc., to various bakehouses. When Mrs Minn was not at home witness usually opt ned the door and put the goods inside, getting a neighbour to sign the receipt.—For the defence it vtns stated that Mrs Minn did not remember ordering the floor though she did not o ny doing so. She did deny that it was delivered, however, and she further spited that she had received two lons of flour from a different firm the tiny before the consignment was alleged to have been delivered. Had it been delivered she would certainly have noticed it. —Evidence was given by Henry Harraway, Frederick Booth, Alfred Boot.fi. and Nellie Mair (who stated if.at when no one was at the bakehouse she signed the dockets when flour was deli vered). —After hearing the evidence the Magistrate said that ho was satisfied that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The defendant had claimed that the flour could not have been delivered when the promises were closed, and vet the dockets .-howii bv Miss Mair and the witness Fox showed that flour find been delivered on several occasions in that way. There was no e.ueg. lion that, it had been delivered in this instance, for it had been traced right u;. to the time of delivery. He thought rhat Mrs Minn was acting in quite pood faith, but she could not count on her knowledge of her business. There were no stock sheets and it was clear from the ficures supplied that she had mi-taKen the quantities used. If four tons had been ordered and only two had eomo an inquiry would surely have been made in a evv short time. 'The defendant had simple been misled by her own wrong estimates Judgment would be given for the full amount (£3IJ. and costs.