MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19550, 5 August 1925, Page 11

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, August 4. (Before Mr Bartholomew, S.M.) Judgment was given by default in the following cases:—City Drapery Store v. Henry B. Scott, claim £1 8s lOd, good supplied (costs 13s); Adams, Ltd. (Christchurch) v. George M’Gregor (Dacre), claim £IBO, cost of second-hand motor car (costs fS 10s); Otago Dairy Company v. Kenneth M'Lennan, claim £B, goods supplied (costs £1 10s 6d); Dunedin Empire Carrying Company v. Matilda Davidson, claim £4 8s 3d, on account stated (costs £1 12s Od); John Fraser Cork v. T. Stamford, Arnpnni, claim £3 13s 6d. drapery supplied (costs £1 13s 6d); John Mill and Co. v. William Muirhead, claim £2O Os 4d, coal supplied, costs (£4 Is 6d); Robert George Tyrell v. Adolphus Curline, claim £l9 10s, rent of a house at Broad Bay at 8s per week from October 17 to June 5 of this year (costs. £3 3s); application for possession of the house was refused, one clear calendar month of notice to quit not having been given; William T. Henaghan v. A. Campbell, claim £4 15s, professional services rendered (costs £1 5s 6d). Judgment Summonses.—William James Bannatyne v. W. Kennedy, claim £lB 2s on a judgment summons, costs £l.—There was no appearance of defendant, and the Magistrate ordered him to pay the amount forthwith, in default 19 days’ imprisonment.— Dunedin Window and Vacuum Cleaning Company v. J. C. Macßae, claim £1 3s.— The defendant did not appear, and was ordered to pay the amount due forthwith, with costs 6s, in default two days’ imprisonment. Charles Peake v. David M'Phail (Port Chalmers), claim £9 19s.— There was no appearance of the defendant, and he was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, with costs 13s Bd, in default 10 days’ imprisonment. ‘ Breach of Award.—The Inspector of Awards, Mr P. H. Kinsman, proceeded against the Motor Parcels Delivery Company (Mr F. G. Duncan) on charges of having paid an employee less /than the award rate provided, and also with having failed to keep a proper time book.—Mr Kinsman said that the defendant had employed a young man named Hall. He had been working with the firm from January 11 to February 13 as a motor driver. The youth was really 21 years of age, and should have been paid £4 7s per week instead of £2 10s. The question of age really entered into the matter. He understand that Mr Torrance, the manager of the company, was under the impression that Hall was 19 years of age, but even than he should have been paid £2 15s per week. He really believed that Mr Torrance was under that impression. In the second case the manager- admitted that a time book had not been provided.—Mr Torrance, manager of the company, said the employee had told him he was not quite 19 years of age. He had agreed to give him £2 10s per week, 2s 6d per week more than the award rate. The father of the youth came to him and said he owed him about £l2 for the wages not paid the boy. He said be would take half this amount ana hush the matter up, but witness refused to do anything of the sort, and said he would only pay what the Magistrate ordered. —The Magistrate said any conflict between the youth and the defendant as to what the position was could only be settled if an action were brought to obtain the difference in the amount of wages paid and what it was alleged should have been paid. It was not a case of deliberate payment of considerably under the award wftges. He would inflict a penalty of £1 on the first count and of £2 on the second count.

Claim for Rent.—A. L. and C. Currie (Mr T. O’Shea) proceeded against Alfred Walker and Amelia Walker (Mr B. J. Anderson) for payment of rent, £36 Os 6d, due on a shop and dwelling in Thomas Burns street. Plaintiffs claimed that the wife was the tenant, , and defendants alleged that the husband (who confessed judgment) was tenant. The Magistrate took the view that the man was the tenant, and the case having been made, by the husband’s confession, an action against the woman, judgment was given for her against plaintiffs, with £3 3s costs. Motor Car Transaction.—Alexander Pearson (Mr R. S., Bremner) v. George Smith (Mr H. E. Barrowclough), claim £45, cost of a motor car. —Alexander Pearson, foreman of Lane’s cordial factory, said the negotiations between himself and the defendant had commenced about April. The price for the car was to be £45. The defendant agreed to buy the car after he had had a trial in it, and had paid £2 as a deposit. The balance was to be paid the following week. The balance had not been paid.—To Mr Barrowclough: He denied asking the defendant to sign an agreement. He gave a receipt for the £2, and the balance* of £43 to be paid was also put on the receipt. A clerical error had been made in the claim. It should have been for £45. . The car was a 1914 Ford machine. He had paid £4O odd for the car, and had spent a considerable amount on it. He had nothing whatever' to do with removing the car to Davidson and Gillies’s garage. The defendant had promised to pay him the balance within a few days.—Aubrey Wright said he had written to the defendant in regard to the payment of the balance. The defendant had com© to see him on June 13. Witness had asked him why he had not paid for the car, and he said he was prepared to forfeit his deposit. Defendant maintained if he did this he would be clear of the contract. Defendant admitted that he had kept the ignition key. He admitted he had made a mistake in doing so, because he thought it made him liable for the rest of the purchase money. The defendant said that the plaintiff had deceived him. That the car was not the one he thought he was buying, and that was the real reason of his refusal to go on with the purchase.—Grossexamined, he told defendant that under the circumstances he was liable for the balance Defendant had admitted to witness that he had bought the car. —Mr Barrowclcjugh said tht defence <?as a complete denial of the evidence given for plaintiff.—George Smith said ho had been friendly with plaintiff for some time. Pearson had told nim he had a car to sell. Witness and Pearson went out in the car. He would flatly contradict plaintiff if he said he (witness) was a good driver. He had told plaintiff that he did not have £45 to pay for the car. Subsequently he told plaintiff that ho could put down £2 to keep the sale open for a couple of days. He decided after consulting with his mother, not to take the car. He denied that he ever agreed to buy the car. He never admitted to Mr Wright that he had bought the car. Cross-examined, he had intended to pay so much down after he had paid the £2. He told the plaintiff that he could not pay the full balance at once. No arrangement was come to as to how the balance was to be paid. He understood if he forfeited the £2 the contract would end. Ho had had no buyers looking at the oar. He did not know how the car had been shifted to Davidson and Gillies’s garage. He still had the keys, but the car could have been shifted without the keys.— Mr Barrowclough said somebody was telling a deliberate falsehood on this point.—* Witness, continuing said he got the keys when he paid the deposit of £2. Nothing was said why the keys were given to him.— The Magistrate said that Pearson had told a very straightforward story with regard to the sale of the car, and his evidence had been corroborated in several respects. Pearson had handed over the keys of the car without which the engine could not have been got to work, and £2 had been paid down as a deposit. A receipt had been given for that amount, and the fact that a balance of £43 was due was also put on the receipt. The defendant had not produced that receipt.. The defendant’s evidence was verv unsatisfactory. He appeared to contradict himself and he gave the impression that he was almost manufacturing his evidence as he went along. The defendant had said he had not tho money to pay for the car, then he had made some mention of paying 5s or 10s per week, and had wound up by saying he bad intended to pay £lO a month. It was futile for the defendant to expect the court to believe his story. Judgment would be allowed for the full amount claimed, with costs £7 Is. A Triangular Dispute.—Roberts and Son (Mr W G Hay) v. Maider and Barr (Mr J B Call’an), claim £BS, cost of building a colonial body for a Chevrolet chassis.— It was stated that after the order for the body had been given, and the work partly finished, the defendants had sold their business to Messrs Hislop and Gibson. A dispute had then arisen as to who was to pay for the body, Hislop and Gibson claiming that they had bought the car complete. The defendants contended that all Hislop and Gibson had bought was a chassis, and that Hislop and Gibson had undertaken to pay for the body.—After some discussion Mr Callan consented to judgment being given against his clients, and explained that the dispute between Messrs Maider and Barr and Hislop and Gibson would later bo referred to the court for hearing hosts amounting to £9 3s wore allowed against tho defendants.