MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19748, 26 March 1926, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, March 25. (Before Mr J. 11. Bartholomew. S.M.). UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given by default in the following cases:—Mayor, Councillors, and Burgesses of the Borough of St. KUda v. Alexander Mac Lean, claim £ls 9s 71, for rates due, with costs (£3 Is); Hose Ann Taylor v. Arthur Henry Taylor, claim £2 for damages, with costs (£5); Smith and Smith (Ltd.) v. Percy John Hall (Lumsden), claim £SS Os 51. for goods supplied, with costs (£1 11s Gel); O. M. Smith and Co. (Ltd.) v. Herbert Edward VVenham (Featherston), claim £O, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 Us 6d); A. S. Paterson and Co. (Ltd.) v. D. E. Peat (Middlemarch), claim £6 4s lid. balance due on goods supplied, with costs (£2 2s Cd) ; Hubert M’Cormick v. M. Martin (Alexandra), claim £G 12s Sd, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 Ids (id) • E. J. Bryant v. F. Eautley and It. Craig, claim £5 for promissory notes due, with costs (14s); Dalgety and Co. (Ltd.) v. T \V. Kobinson (Miller’s Flat), claim £lo 15s 4d, for goods supplied, with costs (£3 14s) ; A. S. Paterson and Co. (Ltd.) v. T. W. Kobinson (Milburn), claim £9 Is, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 15s 6d); A. S. Paterson and Co. v. F. B. Shaw (Invercar* gill), claim £35 17s, for goods supplied, with costs £4 Is Gd) ; H. P. and N. Bryant v. John Keith Lyndsay Welding, claim foO for promissory note due, with costs (£4 Gs 01); E. J. Bryant v. G. D. Sutherland and T. P Cuttle, claim £2 Bs, amount of promissory note due, with costs (9s). JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Stella Hanley proceeded against Stanley Baker, claiming £9 5s for maintenance.— Mr B. S Irwin appeared for defendant. _4n order was made for payment of the amount in weekly instalments of £l, default being fixed at 10 days’ imprisonment. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. David CTree Richardson (Mr B S. Irwin) proceeded against E. D. Smith (Mr King), claiming £22 10s The claim was made on the grounds that plaintiff, on February- 20 was a tenant of defendants house at of Melbourne road, and defendant wrongfully entered and took possession of the place. Plaintiff for thai reason sought to recover the sum of £ls. £3 special damages, and £4 for linoleum. —Defendant entered a counter-claim for £l6 for rent due and damage done. He contended that the house had been let to Mrs Wedgewoocl, who had sub-let the place to plaintiff without defendant’s consent. Defendant allowed plaintiff to stay on until February 4 on the understanding that the house was o be vacated on that date. This, he alleged, had not been done.—After hearing lengthy evidence, the Magistrate said the law was unite against defendant, but he had m ® ll * on his side. His tenant did not vacate the house gnd had left him m an awkward fix. Smith however, did not appreciate ■ position. Richardson had no equity on his allowed £2.,lCs with costs (£1 IHJ-