MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20101, 18 May 1927, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, Mai 17. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Judgment by default was given in the following cases Farra Bros. (Ltd.) v. W. Watson (Maheno), claim £2 3s, 9d, for goods supplied, costs £1 11s 6d; Hallenstein Bros. (Ltd.) v. F. W. Butler (Waihi). claim £4 I9s sd, for goods supplied, costs £1 3s 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. John Crozier proceeded against Alexander M'Culloch claiming £8 11s 6d. An order was made for the payment of the full amount, defendant being sentenced, in default of payment, to eight days’ imprisonment. ’ - REHEARING GRANTED. A rehearing was granted in a case in whic G. Choo Queo had been proceeded against by Mason, Struthers, and Co. (Christchurch) for the payment of £5 18s, and in which defendant had been ordered to pay the amount, or, in default, undergo six days' imprisonment.—Defendant, who waa represented by Mr W, L. Moore, said that he had not read the latter part of the summons, and bo had not been present when the case was heard.’—Plaintiffs were represented by Mr A. N. Haggitt.—Defendant said that he sold ice cream and soft drinks, but ho had made an average of only 30s a week since January. He was in debt to the extent of £3OO. If ho could raise enough money to go bankrupt, ha would file. His wife was an invalid, mid ho had two young children. The rent for his shop was £2 10s a week, and for his houso he paid 13s a week. His business had been going back foj two years. The seasons had been bad. One could not sell icc cream in cold weather. “1 have been trying to sell out to pay you people who have been harassing me.” said defendant, in reply to a question from Mr Haggitt.—Tlie Magistrate said that if this position had been disclosed when the case was first heard no order would have been made. The order originally made would bo cancelled. POSSESSION OF HOUSE.

Agnes Tuckcy (Mr A. C. Stephens) claimed from John Cunningham (Mr B. Thomson) possession of a house at No. 19 Melbourne street and rent duo amounting to £9 5s 6d.—L. Tuckey, husband of plaintiff, said that his wife was in a verv bad state of health. She owned Nos. 17 and 19, Melbourne street. She had occupied No. 17 until recently, when she had left the, house in order to go to Christchurch. She had suddenly taken a bad turn, however, and was unable to travel. Witness and his wife were at present staying at an hotel, but a doctor had advised her to get into a house of her own. Witness considered No. 19 more suitable than No. 17.—After hearing defendant’s evidence the magistrate stated that this was no doubt a case of considerable hardship, but could not overlook the tenant. Ho did not see any reason why the tenant of No. 19, who had been in the house for four years, should be put out before the tenant of No. 17. who had been in the house only a few month?. No order would he made, but judgment would bo given for the rent and costs (£2 6s). LENGTHY HEARING ADJOURNED. Henry John Brooks claimed from John Butler of Clarksville, £49 on the grounds that defendant had failed to comply with the terms of the lease of a property in Leith Valiev.— Plaintiff was represented by M r C. J. L. White, and Mr P. S. _ Anderson appeared for defendant.—Plaintiff gave evidence that when Butler’s lease expired in 1922 the farm was in a state of disrepair. Fences were broken, and the property was overrun with noxious weeds. Defendant had sub-let a house to a man who had kept fowls in it. Plaintiff _ and others had spent some weeks in repairing the damage. —Daniel Smith, a hospital assistant, said that he had been employed bv plaintiff in clearing the ground of weeds and in repairing fences. —Albert Stewart Brooks gave evidence similar to that of his father, and the case, which had occupied most.' of the afternoon, was adjourned until Tuesday next.