MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22609, 28 June 1935, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thursday, June 27. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S,M,) UNDEFENDED CASES. . Judgment by default was given -for the plaintiffs in the following cases:-r-Red-dells, Ltd., v. David Machee (Waikaka), claim £2 2s 7d for goods supplied, with costs (£l.sa 6d); Butterfields, Ltd., v. Mrs Lydia White (Merton), daim £lO 3s for, goods supplied, with costs (£2 : 18s); Maiders Motors, Ltd., v. James Fitzgerald, claim £1 for work done, with costs (8s) ; J, and J. Arthur, Ltd., v. John Riordah (Card-ona), claim £5 4s 5d for goods supplied, with costs (£1 12s 6d). JUDGMENT SUMMONS. M'Cracken Bros. v. Kuin Lee, claim £6 3s Cd on a judgment summons.—The debtor did not appear, and an order was made for immediate payment of the amount, with costs (10s), in default seven days' imprisonment. CLAIM FOR RENT. A. R. Brown proceeded against Joseph Woods on a claim for £0 ss, the amount of rent due by the defendant in respect of a property owned by the plaintiff.— Mr R. King apppeared for the plaintiff, and Mr O. J. Cooke for the defendant. —Mr King said that in March last the defendant went to the office of Messrs Smith and Lousley, who were agents for the plaintiff, and after telling them that the tenant who had been occupying the property in question was leaving offered to take it over at a weekly rental of 12s Cd. This was agreed to, and the defendant then went away. Nothing more was heard of him, and a month later an account, for a month's rent was sent to him. No rent had been paid, however, nor was the account returned through the dead-letter office, and it was not until a summons was issued that the defendant saw Mr Lousley and explained that he had never occupied the place. The plaintiff now claimed the 'amount of rent due for 10 weeks. —Evidence as to the arrangement made by the defendant for renting the property was given by Maurice Lousley.—Mr Cooke said that the defendant did not deny the agreement, but the position was that after he had approached Messrs Smith and Lousley the then tenant had told him that he proposed carrying on for another 12 months. He could not get possession, nor could he get the key of the house. Moreover, he had never received any debit note from Messrs Smith and'Lousley.—Evidence in support of Mr Cooke's statement was tendered by the defendant. —The magistrate said it was unfortunate that the defendant had not got in touch with Mr Lousley, but he had never been let into possession of the property and therefore was under no. legal obligation to the plaintiff. He would he allowed judgment, with costs (£1 Is).