MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21241, 23 January 1931, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, January 22. Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. Judgment by default was given in the following cases:—Waikouaiti County Council v. G. W. Elliott, claim 2s 9d, for rates and penalties due, with costs £6 16s); same v. T. T. Watts, claim 19s 7d, for rates and penalties due, with costs (£7 16s) ; same v. C. F. Black, claim 16s sd, for rates and penalties due, with costs (£6 16s); A. Taylor and Sons, Ltd. v. W. Clark, claim Us 3d, for goods supplied, with costs (13s); A. S. Paterson and Co., Ltd. v. A. Stewart (Waikouaiti), claim £6 14s 3d, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 9s 6d); Otago Hospital Board v. Leslie Humphries (Blackwater), claim £22 Is, for maintenance and treatment in Dunedin Hospital, with costs £4 3s 6d); same v. Richard Frankpitt (Greymouth), claim £2l Bs, for maintenance and treatment in Dunedin Hospital, with costs (£4 4sod); Cossens and Black, Ltd. v. F. J. O’Connell, claim £9 4s 7d, for work done and goods supplied, witli costs (£2 2s 6d); Iron and Steel Company of New Zealand, Ltd v. Henry John Sutton (Waiau). claim £2O 17s lid, for goods supplied, with costs (£4 15s 6d); Ireland and Co. v. S. Frame, claim £36 10s 6d, for goods supplied, with costs (£4 7s 6d); R. Wilson and Co. v. Lewis Frederick Clapp (Gore), claim £2 14s 3d, goods supplied, with costs (£1 11s 6d): Hugh and G. K. Neill v. P. . Cairns (Clyde), claim 8s 6d, costs of action; H. Wise and Co. v. Associated Agencies (Paeroa), claim £2 Is lOd, cost of New Zealand Post Office Directory, 1930, with costs (£1 3s 6d); Tilbury Forwarding Company v. Alfred John Ruff (Nelson), eliam £1 19s 9d,' services rendered, with cost (8s); H. S. Bingham and Co. v. A. H. Bishop (Mataura), claim £4 12s 6d, work done and goods supplied, with costs (fl 12s 6d); H. Wise and Co. v. Brooker and Co. ‘(Timaru), claim 8s 2d, copy of New Zealand Index, 1930, with costs (8s); H. 'H.. Croft v. L. Keliett (Macandrew Bay), claim £1 4s, goods supplied, with costs (12s); H. Wise and Co, y. Clara Jane, claim £3, costs of advertising, with costs (£1 3s 6d); Arthur C. Lawbert v. F. R. N. Wood (Christchurch) claim £2 -5s 4d, goods supplied, with costs (fl 3s 6d); Hugh and 6. K, Neill v. M- Ross, claim 15s, goods supplied, with, costs (12s); South Island Motors v. Edwip Villara Dalton (Auckland), claim 17s 3d, repairs to a motor car, with costs (8s); Alexander Boag v. Roland Smith (Christchurch), claim 13s, repairs to a motor car, with costs (6s); Joln\ Stuart Dagg v. Stanley Edward Lloyd, claim £63 Is 6d, money due and interest, with costs (£4 Us 6d); Barnett’s Radio Supplies v. J. Kirkpatrick (Lumsden), claim £5 7s, goods supplied, with costs -(£1 10s 6d); W. Harris and Son v. G. Wilson, claim £2 3s 6d, goods supplied, with costs (£1 3s 6d), , JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Estate of S. S. Myers v, Adam Broekie, claim £5 18s on a judgment summons. — There was no appearance of the defendant, who was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, with costs (12s). in default six days’ imprisonment , W. H. and J. H. Kedzlie v. Stewart Stevenson, claim £8 12s, on a judgment summons.—There was no appearance of the defendant, who was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, with costs (10s). in default nine days’ imprisonment. Turnbull and Jones v. R. Vietch (Port Chalmers), claim £1 2s 7d, on a judgment summons.—There was no appearance of the defendant, who , was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, with costs (10s 6d, in default two days’ imprisonment, POSSESSION OF a HOUSE. Henry M. Lyons (Mr R. L. Fairtnaid) v. Richard Mulford, claim for rent and for possession of the house No, 666 King street. The plaintiff said that the defendant had lived in the bouse from July 24, and had never paid any rent to him. He understood the defendant had paid £3 4s to Mr Faimaid. The. rent had been fixed at 18s per week.—The magistrate gave judgment for the sum of £lO 6s, with costs (£3 Is), An order was also made that the defendant should vacate the premises on or before February 6. SALE OF A RACING SULKY, Alexander Dawes v. James George Cruickshank (Gore), claim 125, the price of a racing sulky ordered by the de< fendant in 1929, and of which he had subsequently refused to take delivery.— Mr A. 6. Neill appeared for the plaintiff and Mr C. M, Barnett for the defendant.—Evidence was given by the plaintiff and his son (Frederick Charles Dawes). —Mr Barnett held that the terms of sale were not set out in the written contract —if there was a contract between the parties. The sale was really what was known as sale or return. Counsel maintained that there was not sufficient evidence before the court to satisfy the statute.—Mr Neill quoted judgments to prove that his client was entitled to succeed. There was no doubt that there was a contract. The defendant had inspected the sulky at the time he made the proposal that the plaintiff should take back the suJky, and this showed that there had been an acceptance.—His Worship said he would hold in the meantime that there had been an acceptance, but that he would reserve that point until be had heard the evidence for the defence. —I he defendant in his evidence said that one of the reasons why he had declined to take the sulky was that there was only a clearance of ' fin between the top of the wheel and the stay in which it was held. —The sulky was brought into the court and it was found that the clearance was IJ inches,—The defendant said he thought the sulky had, had a greater clearance when he had seen it at Mr Dawes s shop.—Mr Neill pointed out that Dawes had not known that f he was going to be asked by him to bring the sulky to the court,—The defendant said he understood Mr Dawes bad said that , the clearance was fin. The plaintiff was recalled and flatly contradicted some of the evidence given by the defendant.— Robert D. MiOier said that the sulky was of standard make, and so far as he could see there was no fault in it. There should be no difficulty in disposing of the sulky,—His Worship said that the plaintiff could not recover in the case. The case had presented a different aspect to what it had in the morning. The law required in a case of this sort—the amount in dispute being over £lo—that an agreement should be in writing or else that there should be an acceptance and, a receipt. He had been asked to rule in the morning whether there was an acceptance or not, but the evidence given that afternoon put quite a different aspect on the case. The plaintiffs’ case could not be affected by the action of the defendant s son, who was only a school boy at the time, and any inspection of the sulky by the boy could not bind the defendant. There was a hopeless conflict of evidence between the parties, and so far ns the evidence was concerned there was nothing to help him. Judgment would be for the defendant, with solicitor’s fee, £3 3s, ana witnesses’ expenses £1 2s,