MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22051, 6 September 1933, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Tuesday. September 5. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given by default in the following cases:—William Partell v. L. Fogarty, claim £1 9s, for goods supplied, with costs (8s); Thomas Barkla, trading as the Premier Trading Company, v. William Fibbes, jun., claim £2 7s, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 7s Od); James Houlihan v. Walter Alexander Anderson, claim £2 15s, for milk supplied, with costs (£1 6s 6d); Forsyth, Johnston, and Co., Ltd., v. G. H. Ollivier (Christchurch), claim £ls 9s fld, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 17s); the D.1.C., Ltd.. v. A. Fearn (Otapiri), claim £1 3s Bd, for goods supplied, with costs (17s); Ford Motors (Dunedin), Ltd., v. Dudley Clarke, claim 14s 6d. for work done and goods supplied, with costs (10s); Reliable Loan Company v. Elsie Perry (Green Island), claim £2 3s, for money lent and interest, with costs (£1 5s Od); Otago Hospital Board v. John Peterson (Lauder), claim £lO lis, for hospital attention, with costs (£2 18s). JUDGMENT SUMMONS. A. and J. Watt, Ltd., v. John Charles Hislop.—Claim £2 9s, on a judgment summons.—An order'was made for payment, in default two days' imprisonment. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. P. E. Clayton, a dressmaker, proceeded against W. M'Kinley, sen., claiming £1 lis 6d, for dressmaking work done about Juno, 1030.—Mr I. B. Stevenson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. M'Alavey for the defendant.—The defence was that the work was paid for when it was done. —After hearing evidence the magistrate described the claim as unsatisfactory, and stated that, to begin with, it was over three years old. The plaintiff had from time to time made articles for the members of the defendant's family. She said that some had been paid for, and that she had received no payment for others. In view of the length of time which had elapsed and the manner in which the defendant had been accustomed to pay for the articles one would not be warranted on the evidence before the court in finding that the amount was still due. The matter would have been different if accounts had been rendered and receipts had been given when payments were made. Judgment would be given for the defendant.