MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19594, 25 September 1925, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, September 24. (Before Mr J. It. Bartholomew, f?.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs, with costs, in the following undefended cases:— X.Z. Hardware Company v. G. T. Nelson (Timaru), £8 3s, for goods supplied, costs (fl Os 6d) ; Geo. Burton v. J. . M’Kellar <Sutton), £l3 17s, for rabbit traps, and costs (£2 14s); J. A. Brown v. R. Telfer, £3 10s on an account stated, and costs (£1 1 19s 6d). E. J. Bryant v. J. E. Dawson.—Claim £l4 18s on a judgment summons. —Defendant having been examined on oath, his Worship refused to make an order. Alfred Brown v. George William Brown (South Dunedin).—Plaintiff claimed from defendant £ls, money lent. —Mr E. J. Anderson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr W. G. Hay for defendant. —Before the case was really entered upon there was some argument as.to the claim, the Magistrate finally stating that a new cause of action was being introduced. He must rule that the amended claim, so fm as the new cause of action was concerned, would have to he struck out.—lt having been agreed to take claim and counter-claim (£2O 3s 6d) together, Mr Anderson mentioned that it was a claim by a father against son for money lent. Considerable assistance had been extended by the father to tho. son.— Plaintiff, a caretaker in the Telegraph Office, stated he had been at the war for nearly four years with his son, Alfred David. They were discharged together. George was a married man, and had been in business ns a carrier while witness was away, and on his return asked for financial assistance. He requested £lO, to get a wagon out of Dawe.'s factory. Witness and his son David sold (heir greatcoats to ihe Defence Department for £5 5s each, and George received £5 from each of them as a loan. Witness set George up in a carrying business afterwards, but was not satisfied with the way the business was conducted. He put the turnout into the hands of an agent, nad it realised £7O. Winess got married, and George came to ids house afterwards and got £lO as a loan.—Cross-examined, witness said that if Mrs Wilson (liis daughter) or his sons said tho money was intended as a wedding present for George they would not be telling the truth. He had told Mrs Wilson that he was sotting the boys up, but he did not remember saying that he was sorry he could not find anything for her. He might have said that. The wagon was not a partnership affair. lie bought it himself to set the boys up.—Ellen Brown, wife of plaintiff, said she remembered that in October, 1922, George came and asked Ids father for £lO. He received that amount. With regard to a drive to Miller’s Flat mid back they went up in George’s motor wagon. They were not tho only passengers, and they paid their owi. accommodation bill. To Mr Hay: Defendant had asked for the money in front of tho whole family. Plaintiff had the money, because ho had just sold the wagon. Plaintiff just took the £lO out of liis pocket and paid it over to George. Defendant had never carted furniture from King street for witness —that was from where she was living.—Hilda Bird said she remembered George calling at the house of her mother (now Mrs Brown). —To Mr Hay; Ho wanted £lO from Mr Brown, and the latter lent it to him. —Mr Hay said that Ihe defence was that the defendant was not under any obligation, and called George Win. Brown, who said he remembered his father and brother David coming back from the war. His father later got married. Witness was driving an express, and sold It because there was some talk of going into a farm. Ho still hud a wagon •eft and wanted money, and his father and David “put their overcoats in,” and lie got £5 from each. Nothing was said in regard to repayment. David, in tho presence of (ho father, said it was a wedding present. Witness got the wagon. A shilling a day allowance to witness's mother was what bought the express and turn-out originally. The wagon was bought to give the boys a start out of tho allotment. He did not understand dial the money was a loan. Ho had boon in his father's house many a time, and money was never mentioned between them. —To Mr Anderson: There had not been any friction over Die second marriage. He had said (hut he would counter-claim with regard to the trip to Miller's Flat. The money was a wedding gift..—Mr Anderson, alluding to the fact that it came after marriage; “On the principle of better late than never.” —Witness, further examined, said the wagon was bought for the boys, and he did not pay his father anything. A lawyer's lull for two guineas ‘To G. W. Brown; re wife” had nothing to do with him.---Alfred David Brown, Charlotte Wilson, and Alice Brown also gave evidence.His Worship said (here were two items in the claim involving two amounts, and the transactions had taken place years ago It was obvious that the relations between Hie parties had become altered to what (hey had been years ago. The £5 had been a gift, and plaintiff was not entitled to recover either amount.—Mr Hay said the counter-claim had only been brought in as a defence. It was only a question of costs.—His Worship gave judgment for defendant on the claim and for plaintiff on Ihe counter-claim, with expenses against plaintiff (£2 12s).