MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22329, 1 August 1934, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, July 31. (Before Mr J. R. ■ Bartholomew, S.M.)

UNDEFENDED CASES

Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in tbe following cases:—J. H. Taverner (Brigbton) v. T. Secular (Tomahawk), claim £4 lOs 7d, balance of account, with costs HI 7s 6d) ; Mann’s News Agency v, T. Pellowe, claim £1 • 18s lOd for goods supplied, with costs (8s). JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. A. J. Rice (Mr J. P. Ward) proceeded against S. B. Sinclair (Mr C. M. Barnett) on a judgment summons to recover the sum of £8 2s 4d. The judgment debtor said in evidence that he was a beauty specialist and his earnings during the past 23 weeks, since judgment was entered against him, bad been a little over £s.—No order was made. T. M. Keiller was proceeded against by Mrs M. MTntosh, and was ordered to pay £2 and costs (8s), in default two days’ imprisonment. JUDGMENT DELIVERED. The magistrate delivered his judgment in the case in which William Douglas Greenwood and Ralph Wraithcr Moore, trading a» the City and Suburban Parcel Delivery, claimed from John Buttar £24 10s special damages and £lO general damages, and Buttar counter claimed for £l2 8s od. The claims arose out of a motor collision in which the plaintiffs’ van and the defendant’s car were damaged. —The .magistrate said that he had carefully considered the evidence and had also inspected the scene of the collision. He reviewed the evidence and said that he had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ account of the occurrence was substantially correct. The amount of the general damages was not recoverable, but the plaintiffs would be awarded £24 10s special damages, with costs (£2) and solicitor’s fee (£4 3s). CLAIM BY ESTATE. Frederick George Duncan and Eupheraia M, F. Divers, as trustees in the estate of Henry Divers (Mr A. G. NcilJ), claimed from Henry Priestly Heaps, farmer, of Lower Portobello (Mr C. M. Barnett), the sum of £O4 3s 4d, being the amount secured by bill of sale given over stock and, chattels by tbe defendant to Divers on December 3, 1932.—Mr Neill said that the bill of sale was registered at the office of the Supreme Court at Dunedin on December 23, 1932. About June or July of 1931, Divers seized cattle secured to him by bill of sale from a man named Guilford, These cattle had originally been bought by Divers from a man called Hickey and • evidently formed part of the consideration given to Guilford from him. They were seized by Divers under a bill of sale dated November 22, 1930. On October 14, 1931, the defendant executed a bill of sale to Divers securing the sum of £67 over chattels, including furniture and seven cows. These latter were referred to as pasturing on the defendant's property at Wingatui, and were cows bought by Divers from Wright, Stephenson and Co., Ltd,, on account of Heaps. These cattle formed part of the consideration given for this bill of sale. The defendant fell into arrears with his repayments under the security and was pressed by Divers for payment. He made certain payments and finally came into town and interviewed Divers. He then executed a bill of sale dated December 3, 1932. This bill was given over the chattels included by the bill of sale previously given by him and included in addition certain cows of which at least four were the cows originally bought by Divers from Hickey and subsequently seized fr">m Guilford. The arrears under the previous bill of sale were at this time £B2. Divers died on February 3, 1932. The defendant fell further into arrears with the instalments due and was finally written to by Divers’s trustee?, who demanded payment. The defendant, on February 5, 1934, wrote offering £SO in settlement and tbe trustees offered to accept £7O. The defendant then withdrew his offer of £SO. In March the trustees received a letter from Mr Barnett intimating that the defendant was making a claim against the estate f>r grazing in respect of the cows seizid from Guilford. In June Mr Barnett was written to and he replied that the ownership had not passed to Heaps.— Evidence along these Hues was heard.— Mr Barnett said that the defendant contended that there was no evidence of any sale at the time of the sceond instrument. There was £32 owing in cash. Six months previous to the execution of the second bill of sale, Divers approached the defendant and requested him to winter eight head of cattle which hud been seized from Guilford. Heaps and his son took delivery from a man named Taverner. Under instructions from Divers one steer and one cow were sold, the former bringing 18s and the latter 10s, The stock was in very poor condition. This left six head of cattle in Heaps's possession in December, 1932. Heaps was friendly with Divers, who asked him to call on him and arrange matters, but nothing was actually arranged. There were only six head of cattle, worth at most £2 per head, and he found that there was a bill of sale for £7O. The transaction seemed a par ticulariy harsh one, since the only outstanding was £32. The man was saddled with a large liability.—The defendant gave evidence to this effect.— The magistrate said that the defendant declared that he believed the second bill of sale on which he was now sued was an agreement regarding the ownership oi the cattle. Fortunately there wes correspondence before the court which left the matter open to little doubt. Judgment would be, for the plaintiffs for £94 8s 4d, with court costs (£2 18s) and solicitor’s fee (£5 4s).