MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19616, 21 October 1925, Page 13

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, October 20. (Before Mr J- R. Bartholomew. S.M.) Judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default in the following cases:—City Drapery Store v. John Henry Moulin, claim £6 14s 4d. for goods supplied, with costs (£1 lis 6d) Sunday Times Newspaper Co. v Frank Joseph Hatch (Invercaigill), claim 10s, for coses; Thomas Hartley v. J.'Muir (Christch'urch), claim £2B 10s, balance due on purchase of a motor cycle, with costs (£4 Is 6d); Donald Reid and Co. v. John M'Millan (Gore), claim £4 2s sd, for potatoes sold and delivered, with costs (£1 5s 6d); New Zealand Hardware Co. v. Arthur Wheeler- (Timaru), claim £2 13s 4d, for poods supplied, with costs (18s 6d); Brace, Windle. Blvth, and Co. v. Chas. Williams (Rlethven), claim £25 4s, for goods supplied, with costs (£4 Is 6d). Tenancy Disputes.—William Aitken proceeded against Edmund Charles Waller for possession of a house in Castle street of which defendant was tenant. It was stated that Waller, who was at first paying a weekly rental of 30s for the house, became dissatisfied and requested the inspector of buildings and factories to assess a reasonable rent on the house. This amounted to 17s 6d per week, and Waller at once complained to plaintiff, who told him "to like it or leave it." Aitken's defence was that he wanted the house (which was next door to the one his married daughter and wife were living in) for himself. His working hours, he explained, were being changed, and in two or three weeks' time he would bo going heme to sleep in the day time and to work at night instead of sleeping at the garage where he was employed.— Cross-examined by Mr Irwin, Aitken said that the fact of the rent being assessed at a much lower figure than he had been changing had nothing to do with his serving Waller with notice to quit. Despite the fact that he had known for two months that he would require the house, he did not serve notice until receipt of a letter from the inspector of factories stating that 17s 6d was a fair weekly rental. His daughter paid him £1 per week for the house in which she was living, in proof of which he produced a bcok snowing the receipts for the four-weekly payments. —Mrs Barbara Bennett (Aitken's daughter), on being asked by Mr Irwin did she not think it strange that this book, which contained all her rent receipts, should be in possession of her father, naively remarked, "Well, surely I can trust my own father." "Quite," retorted Mr Irwin, "but the book appears to me to have been made up all at the one time —in fact, it appears very suspicious."—The Defendant, Waller, stated that nothing had been said to him about vacating the house until he had had the rent reviewed. —"Did you attempt to get anothor house?" inquired Mr Duncan. — I've got to go to work, and haven't time to be running about looking for houses. My wife does that," retorted Waller. — The Magistrate remarked that the whol» history of the transaction seemed suspicious and that as no proof had been brought that the plaintiff had reasonable grounds for demanding possession he would be nonsuited and ordered to pay costs (£1 Is). Ellen Harkness, for whom Mr G. T. Baylee appeared, brought an action against W. Pope to recover possession of a tenement in Prendergast street. Mr G. Lousley appeared for the defendant. —After evidence had been given by Thomas Harkness (son of the plaintiff). Mr Lousley suggested that two months' notice of the termination of the tenancy should be given to the defendant.—Mr Baylee agreed to this. —His Worship said he thought it was a very proper compromise, and he considered that both solicitors should be complimented on the agreement. He would make an order for possession on or before December 15.