MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21829, 16 December 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, December 15. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. In the following undefended cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs:—Commercial Investment and Discount Company v. G. R. Gill, claim £2l 7s, balance due on promissory notes, with costs (£4 7s 0d); Hislop and Gibson, Ltd., v. J. Jackson Munro, claim £l4 9s sd, for goods supplied, etc., with costs (£2 18s); Otago Hospital Board v. I. H. Vickers, claim £2 13s, hospital expenses; Smith and Smith, Ltd., v. 6. Stanley, claim £1 2s Cd, for goods supplied, with costs (8s); Drapery Supply Association, Ltd., v. J. Attwcll, claim £ll os, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 ICs); Drapery and General Importing Company, Ltd., v. Mary M. Smith (Christchurch), claim £2 12s lOd, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 5s Cd); Jessie M'Queen v. J. S. Reid, claim £1 15s, for laundry work done, with costs (8s); Otago Hospital Board v. Hector George Henderson (Arthur’s Point), claim £2 Cs, hospital expenses, with costs (£1 3s Cd); Adess and Son, Ltd., v. H. C. Yarwood (Napier), claim £5 Is Bd, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 10s Cd) ; Otago Hospital Board v. Robert I. Butler, claim £2 7s, hospital expenses, with costs (£1 3s Cd); Wellington WoMlen Manufacturing Company, Ltd., v. J. A. Sloan (Balclutha), claim £5 19s 2d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 30s Cd) ; Milne,. Brenmer, Ltd., v, J. R. Hopkins (Round Hill), claim £9 Is 9d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 10s Cd); W. D. Rose v. H. Gibson, claim £4 4s, professional services, with costs (£1 4s Cd); Otago Hospital Board v. Robert Smith (Green Island), claim Bs. court expenses. CLAIM FOR POSSESSION.

Joseph Miller v. Stanley Leigh, claim for possession of a tenement at 17 Swan street, Dunedin, and for £33 15s for rent. —An order was made for possession on or before December 29, 1932, and judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs (£4 11s Cd). JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

D. Murdoch v* Ernest Duckett, claim £l4 13s Cd, on a judgment summons. —The defendant did not appear, and an order was made for payment forthwith of the amount claimed, with costs (£1 Is), in default 14 days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended so long as the defendant pays 10s per week.

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT. Ernest Dickons v. Charles Medley (Parawa). The plaintiff claimed that on August 17 last ho was engaged by the defendant to act as a cook at. a camp at Parawa; that the defendant should pay the plaintiff £3 a week for six. weeks, and thereafter the plaintiff should do the work on a contract basis; and that through the default of the defendant the plaintiff was prevented from carrying out the contract. Plaintiff claimed £l9 2s 8d for special damages, and £lO gene-

ral damages. In the alternative the plaintiff claimed £2 17s Sd (loss ot employment on relief works £1 15s, tram fare 13s 4d, board and lodging 9s 4d), and £lO general damages—Mr 0. Stevens appeared for the plaintiff; Mr i l . b. Dawson for the defendant.—The plaintiff gave evidence on the lines or ins claim.—For the defence, Mr Dawson said that on all construction camps it was the custom that the cook was either employed by the men under contract <or by the Mess Committee of the men. That was explained to the defendant, who went to the camp to see things for himself and make arrangements .with the men. The defendant appeared to be dissatisfied with things, at the camp. He had an accident on the road, and it was snowing on the day he was there, and he left without telling anyone in authority that he was leaving.—Evidence was oi'ven by Arthur B. Anderson (engineer). Mr Dawson explained that the defeudant had not been brought to Dunedin, as he was at the camp in charge of a number of men. —His Worship said theic was a conflict between the witnesses; it would not be safe for him to take one view or the other, and the plaintiff would be nonsuited.