MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21359, 12 June 1931, Page 13

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, June 11. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.)

UNDEFENDED CASES".

Judgment for the plaintiff was given in the following undefended cases: — Galder, Mackay Co., Ltd., v. T. M. S. Lawless, £lO 14s, amount due on hire purchase agreement, with costs (£2 19s); J. Neilsou v. John Williams, £lO 15s, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 18s); Hunt and White v. Nichol W. Anderson, £2 Ij, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 8s 6d); Rhodes, Ltd., v. R. John.on, 15s for goods supplied, with costs (8s); Rhodes, Lid., v. George Docherty (Outram), £2 18 s 6d for goods supplied, with costs (£1 3s 6d); J. Johnston v. A. Stewart (Waikouaiti), £7 13s, for goods supplied, with costs (£ I 10s (id); A. Aitken v. R. J. Gibson (Timaru), £4 11s, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 3s 6d); Donald Reid and Co., Ltd., v. Alexander Innes (Hawea), £22 9s Bd, for goods supplied, with costs (£4 3s 6d); George Gibb v. Gideon James Scott (Waipori Falls), £5 Os 7d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 12s 6d); The Reliable Loan and Investment Corporation, Ltd., v. Athelstanc B. Islip, £3 ss, for money lent, with costs (£1 3s 6d)i

j JUDGMENT SUMMONSES, i Jack Leslie v. D. B. Cody, judgment summons to recover £3 15s 6d.—The defendant was ordered to pay the amount ! claimed, with costs (8s), in default four daVs’ imprisonment. \ John Wilson v.. W. Cody, judgment summons to recover £2 Is 6d. —The defendant was ordered to pay the amount claimed, with costs (8s), in default two days’ imprisonment.

RESERVED JUDGMENT. ■ Reserved judgment was given in the case in which K. Alexander and Co., Ltd. (Mr F. J. Green) proceeded against A. M. Watson (Mr T. O’Shea), claiming to recover the sum of £6 11s lid, allegedly owing for goods sold and supplied to the defeiiaant by the plaintiff company.—After j reviewing the evidence the magistrate I stated that although the plaintiff company had not adhered to the arrangement made , with the defendant, the latter could not refuse to accept delivery of the goods after she had held them for some months. i Judgment would therefore be given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs (£4 8s 6d). SALE OF LIQUOR DISPUTED. Michael Kean (Mr L. R. Simpson) proceeded against John Robertson Parlane (Mr 0. J. L. White), claiming the sum of £l2 15s 6d alleged to be owing on consignments of liquor supplied by the ■ plaintiff to the defendant. —The plaintiff, in evidence, stated that he had known the defendant for some years. He gave details of the various transactions between himself and the defendant, and stated that the defendant had paid £5 on account, and later, when he (the plaintiff) was in Milton he went into<the defendant’s shop and was paid a further 80s by the defendant. —Richard Cain, a barman employed by the plaintiff, identified the defendant as the man to whom a quantity of whisky had been sold by the plaintiff. —Margaret Kean, wife of the plaintiff,, stated.that she had known the defendant for a "number of years, and stated that he had stayed at the hotel on one occasion, when he had secured a parcel of liquor. The hotel guest book, which i.iw produced, showed that, the defendant had stayed at the hotel on the date in question.—Thomas Kean, a brother of the plaintiff, and a barman in the Metropolitan Hotel, could not identify the defendant when asked to do so.—The defence was an absolute denial that the defendant had received any liquor from the plaintiff. In evidence the defendant said the plaintiff approached him on the Wingatui racecourse, and asked him about money he was said to owe for whisky. The defendant then denied that he owed any money for whisky. He denied that he, had ever stayed at the Metropolitan Hdtel, or that plaintiff had come into Ins ship at Milton in connection with the alleged debt.—To Mr Simpson, the defendant said that the records of the sales entered by the plaintiff in 1929 were either false or were in respect of some other person with whom the plaintiff, had confused the defendant. He admitted that he had been- convicted for sly grog selling in 1927, and that he refused to pay the fine, which someone else had settled for him.—The magistrate said that so far as Kean’s identification of the defendant was concerned no mistake cOuld be made. The fact remained that unless the defendant was the man who took the liquor the charge made by the plaintiff was a deliberate falsehood. The hotel books showed that Parlane had stayed at the hotel, a fact'which the defendant denied. He also denied •purchasing the liquor or paying the, plaintiff any money. The plaintiff’s receipt books showed that two payments, one of £5 and one of £1 10s, had been made by Parlane, the latter payment having been paid by Parlane in his shop at Milton. There was no possible mistake about that fact, and unless he had forgotten the incident the defendant’s sworn statement was I- a deliberate falsehood. Furthermore, if such a case had been concocted by the Keane it would be in the nature of a master crime. He (the magistrate) could hardly imagine that the plaintiff would go to such lengths as making false entries in his books in order to bring an action two years afterwards. The effect of those entries was to convince the magistrate that the liquor had been sold to the defendant. Judgment would therefore be given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs (£4 2s).