MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21993, 30 June 1933, Page 11

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, June 29. (Before Mr J., R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for the plaintiffs in the following eases:—Hunt and White v. Mary Jane Anderson (Poolburn), claim 18s, for goods supplied, with costs (10s) ; Safety Parking and Service Station, Ltd,, v. W. Shearer (Wingatui), claim £4 10s, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 8s 6d) ; Oswald M. Smith and Co. v. K. F. Burns, (Cambridge), claim £4 17s lOd for goods supplied, with costs (£1 4s Gd) ; same v. P. Reddy (Thames), claim £l3 2s 2d, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 14s) ; New Zealand Typewriter and Supplies ' Company v. J, M. Giles (Oamaru), claim £9, for balance of instalments due, with costs (£1 10s 6d) JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. . Colvin M'Glashan v. J. Niven (Macandrew Bay), claim 18s, on a judgmen t summon!*.—The debtor did not appear, and an order was made for immediate payment of the amount, with costs (14s), in default two days’ imprisonment. Ford Motors (Dunedin), Ltd., v. Charles G. Lucas, claim £2 7s Bd, on a judgment of the court. —After hearing evidence as to the debtor’s circumstances, the magistrate refused to make an order. James Mitchell v. Robert G. Miller, claim £4 3s, on a judgment of the court; —There was no appcdrance of the debtor and an order was made for immediate payment of the amount, with costs (10s), in default five days’ imprisonment. . A POINT OF LAW. His Worship delivered reserved judgment on a point of law raised during the hearing of the case in which the Public Trustee proceeded against Calder Mackay, Ltd., as executors of the will of the late Alexander Murdoch, on a claim for £ll 18s lid, the value of a plate-glass window in the premises occupied by the defendant company, which was alleged to have been broken through the negligence of the company’s servants. —During the hearing the point was raised that as an agreement between the parties provided for matters in dispute being settled by arbitration, the court had no jurisdiction in the matter. —The magistrate held’ that the defendant company’s solicitor had committed himself to court proceedings as he had accepted service of the summons. Another reason why the case should be heard by the court was that there was a common law action regarding negligence, and the whole matter could be determined in the one proceedings, whereas if arbitration were resorted to there would probably be two hearings. The case was one to bo determined in that court, and it would therefore be heard on July 4. . A NONSUIT ENTERED. James Patrick Hand (Mr M. A. Clowes) proceeded against William Alexander Rowland (Mr W, Ruffell) on a claim for £2 15s, as rent in lieu of notice in respect of a house belonging to the plaintiff of which the defendant had been the occupier.—After hearing evidence, the magistrate stated that the plaintiff had failed to define the exact nature of the tenancy. He must therefore be nonsuited, and costs (£1 Is) would be allowed the defendant. DISPUTE OVER RADIO SET.

J. R. Slemint proceeded against A. J. Michie on a claim for £2O, as damages arising of the sale of an allegedly faulty wireless receiving sot by the defendant to the plaintiff.—Mr W. Ruffell appeared for the plaintiff and Mr G. M. Lloyd for the defendant.—The statement of claim, set out that in November, 1930, the plaintiff purchased from

the defendant a wireless sot for which he paid £2B. At the time of purchase the plaintiff was given to understand that the machine was of good (.workmanship' and quality, and capable of , receiving all the usual New Zealand and Australian stations, but he, had found that this was not the case, and that the machine was not capable of receiving:;., transmissions from Australia without considerably more than the uSuiil electrical interference, andthat all reception. was accompanied by loud noises which rendered clear reception almost impossible. Moreover,-pre-sumably on account of bad workmanship and lack of skill in construction, the machine had taken plaintiff, in, evidence, stated that the_ sot had never functioned satisfactorily since lie had had it, and he was convinced that this was no fault of his, as he had never at 'any time interfered with it. It first went wrong approximately two months after it had been installed, and on one occasion it had caught fire and endangered witness’s home. He had told the defendant on several occasions that he was not satisfied with the set, and about ; six months ago he had disconnected it and had not used it since.—James Hector Gault tendered technical in, support of the claim and stated that in many respects the construction of the set was not in accordance with the best electrical practice. In his opinion, it would cost approximately £lO to equip the set so that it would function properly.—For the defence, it was contended that the trouble in the set was due to misuse, careless handling and tampering by some inexperienced operator. —The defendant gave evidence in support of this contention and stated that when the plaintiff took delivery of the set it was in perfect order. —Expert evidence on behalf of the defence was given by James David M'Ewen. —The magistrate sai<T that it was obvious that the machine had been interfered with in some manner whilst in the plaintiff’s possession, and the evidence had not shown that when sold it was not in good marketable condition. Judgment would therefore ho given for the defendant, with costs (£2 19s).