MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21601, 23 March 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, March 22. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiff in the following undefended cases: —Robert Millin v. Eric Schicb (Cromwell), claim £1 11 s, balance of costs; E. and L. Duff v. W. Stanley, claim 17s 6d, for goods supplied, with costs (10s); A. J. Haig v, J. Tobin, claim £4. 17s 6d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 11s 6d); Mercantile Industries v. J. Crowle, claim 13s, for goods suppled, with costs (8s); Laidlaw and Gray v. Fred Arbuckle, claim £2 7s 6d, balance of an account agreed upon, with costs (27s 6d); Whitcombe and Tombs, Ltd., v. S. Robertson, claim 12s sd, balance of account, with costs (12s); Wilson, Balk and Co., Ltd., v. W, Davidson (Christchurch), claim £2l 17s Bd, for goods supplied, with costs (£4 4s Cd); E. S. Clarke v. W. Carolin, claim £2 3s Cd, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 4s Gd); Commercial Trading Company (N.Z.), Ltd., v. A. Fowke (Christchurch), claim £4B 5s Bd, for goods supplied, with costs (£4 2s Cd); Donald Reid and Co., Ltd., v. William Kean jun. (Owaka), claim £0 10s sd, price of a cow with interest, with costs (£1 12s 0d); A. and T. Burt, Ltd., v. George Henry Doran (Oamaru), claim for costs (18s); Stanton Bros. v. M. J. Gill (Ohura), claim £l7 lls 2d, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 16s) ; M'Callum and Co. v, L. S. Robertson (Pembroke), claim £B9 10s 3d, for goods supplied, with costs (£5 4s Cd) ; Penrose’s,'Ltd., v. G. J. Jones (East Taieri), claim £1 13s Cd, for goods supplied, with costs (14s); A. M. Barron v. T. Condon, claim 8s Id, for goods supplied, with costs (15s); Peninsula County Council v. Charles E. Clarke, claim 12s 3d, rates due, with costs (31s); E. W. Pidgeon and Co., Ltd., v. Thomas Charles Smith, claim £8 18s Bd, for goods supplied, with costs (17s). JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

Hislop and Gibson, Ltd., v. Thomas Lindsay, claim £4 16s 9d, with costs (Us 8d). —Defendant was ordered to pay the amount with costs forthwith, in default live days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended provided he pays 10s per week from March 29. G. Thomson v. C. Light, claim £lO 7s 7d, with costs (£l).—-After hearing evidence of the affairs of debtor the magistrate refused to make any order.

RESERVED JUDGMENT DELIVERED.

Reserved judgment was delivered in the case iu which Thomas Joseph Purcell proceeded against Joseph Kerr on a claim for £123 15s 7d for malicious falsehood, and in which Kerr counter-claimed from Purcell the sum of £32 17s 7d, alleged to be due for the supply of milk to plaintiff. The magistrate stated that consideration of the agreement of sale and the surrounding circumstances showed that the clause of the agreement relating to the supply of milk was a material part of the contract. Defendant claimed that that was a substantial part of the consideration for the sale of the milk run, and that was, in effect, recognised by the plaintiff when he claimed that the run was worth £125 to him while in the agreement of sale the goodwill was put at £ls. Defendant was to receive 9d a gallon whereas plaintiff procured milk elsewhere at 6d per gallon, or when allowance was made for the * extra distance, at an equivalent of 7d per gallon. Defendant was not merely selling a milk run, but providing for the disposal of his milk for five years at a certain price. Plaintiff repudiated the agreement on the ground that the defendant was supplying bad milk. Plaintiff alleged that the bad milk was caused by the mixing of night and morning milk and through a lack of proper cooling appliances. Defendant, on the other hand, blamed the lack of cleanliness of plaintiff’s cans for the bad milk. After reviewing the evidence the magistrate held that the most likely cause of the bad milk was the plaintiff’s own cans, and in any case he had not proved the supply of inferior milk by defendant. Although plaintiff rescinded the agreement wrongfully he nevertheless did rescind it and the agreement came to an end. Plaintiff could not now claim under it. With respect to a claim of damages from injurious falsehood the magistrate held that the defendant had had insufficient reason for believing the statements he made with regard to plaintiff’s milk, and said that he considered £25 a fair recompense for the loss he had suffered. Judgment would be for plaintiff in that matter, with costs (£2 9s), witnesses expenses (£2 19s), solicitor’s fee (£4 3s). In respect of the counter-claim the magistrate said the defendant was entitled to be paid 9d per gallon, Plgintiff had not proved that defendant had received more than two sums of £2 10s Sd and 19s 4d respectively, so that judgment would be given defendant for £32 17s 7d, with costs (£1 13s) and solicitor’s fee (£3 3s). DISPUTE OVER SUIT. M'Leau’s, Ltd., proceeded against J. Richards for a sum of £8 Bs, the of a suit, supplied by them to defendaut. —The statement of claim was that defendant was measured for a suit which plaintiffs made for him, and for which he had not paid.—The defence alleged that the suit was made for defendant in place of another one which did not fit, and which plaintiff’s promised to replace.—After hearing the evidence, which included the trying on of suits, the magistrate said that there had been some hard swearing in this case. The evidenoe was flatly contradictory on matters in which there could be no mistake, and it was only a case of absolute falsehood on one side or the other. The onus was on the defence to prove that there had been an arrangement by which a new suit'was to have been supplied in place of that which was’alleged to have been ill-fitting, but there was no direct evidence of such an arrangement, the existence of which the M'Leans denied. With regard to the suit which the defence sought to show was so defective as to be unwearable he was not there to pass judgment as to the quality or fit, but the plaintiffs did not profess that it was a high-grade, tailor-made product, and one could not expect a meticulous fit. He was, however, not directly concerned with that. What he had to consider was whether the defence had proved that there had been a definite arrangement. It had not done so, and judgment would therefore be given for the plaintiff for the full amount, with costs (£2 Cs).