MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22721, 6 November 1935, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Tuesday, November 5. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for the plaintiffs in the following cases:— J. S. Fleming v, B. Brent, claim £3 6s, for professional services rendered, with costs (£1 8s 6d) ; Donald Reid and Co., Ltd., v. James' Cowie (Queenstown), claim £l2 18s sd, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 16s); M. Moreton v. T. Dunn (Balclutha), claim £5 Is, for moneys due, with costs (£1 10s 6d); C. H. Paul v. Robert Cowie (Arrowtown), claim £8 7s 6d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 10s 6d) ; Kaitangata Coal Company v. Charles Henry Meggitt (Clinton), claim £33 17s 7d, for goods with costs (£4 Is 60?). . JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Turnbull and Jones, Ltd., v. I. Smart, claim £4 13s lid on a judgment of the court. —The debtor did not appear, and an order was made for immediate payment of the amount, with costs (6s), in default five days' imprisonment. A MOTOR COLLISION. The hearing of the case in which Wanaka Motors, Ltd., proceeded against the Silverstream Dairy Company (Mosgiel), claiming £404 9s Id as damages arising out of a collision on the Main South road near Henley on December 24 last between a service bus belonging to the plaintiff company and a lorry owned by the defendants, was continued. —Mr J. P. Ward, and with him Mr D. A. Solomon, appeared for the plaintiff company, and Mr E, J. Anderson for the Silverstream Dairy Company.— For the plaintiffs, it was maintained that the accident w'as caused by the negligence of the driver of the lorry. Negligence, however, was denied by the defendant company, which alleged that the excessive speed of the. bus was the cause of the collision.—After counsel had addressed the court, his Worship reserved his decision. CLAIM FOR RENT.

Marion Donaldson, Amelia Donaldson (both of Dunedin) and Matthew Donaldson and Alick Rangi Gillespie Donaldson (both of Ealing, South Canterbury) proceeded against E. P. Cameron claiming £49 10s as rent (nine weeks at £5 10s per week) of a shop and premises at the corner of Dowling and Princes streets. —Mr J. M. Paterson represented the plaintiffs and Mr C. Movvat the defendant.—Outlining the case for the plaintiffs, Mr Paterson said that they were the owners of the Excelsior Hotel buildings at the corner of Dowling and Princes streets. As a result of negotiations between A. Donaldson and Mrs M. Donaldson and the defendant, the latter agreed to rent the shop on trial, and gave an undertaking that if business proved satisfactory he would take a proper lease. On March 27 of last year he arranged to take the shop for six months at a rental of £5 10s per week. He got the key and took over the shop, stating that he wished to do some whitewashing during the Easter holidays. Some structural alterations were carried out, and additional drainage installed, after Cameron took over the shop, but, although Cameron had gone into the shop, he apparently considered that he was not expected to commence paying rent until he commenced business—a period of nine weeks from March 27. The question in dispute was, therefore, whether rent c6mmenced when the key was handed over, as the plaintiffs claimed it did, or whether there were conditions attached making it payable from some future date. —Evidence as to the arrangement between the plaintiffs and Cameron was tendered by Mrs Marion Donaldson aiid A. R. Donaldson, both of whom said that they did not recollect the defendant saying that the shop would be no good to him unless certain alterations were carried out.—George A. Lawrence, a builder, described the alterations.—The defendant, in evidence, maintained that he had arranged for the tenancy to commence when the alterations were completed and he was ready to open the business. Moreover, when he made this agreement, no mention was made of the

fact that he was to be charged rent from the time he actually took over the shop. He had told Donaldson and his mother that the shop would be no good to him unless a door were altered and suitable drainage installed. —Further evidence for the defendant was given by Samuel Devereux, an inspector in the employ of the Dunedin Drainage Board, and Donald Watson.—The magistrate said that this was another instance of a dispute arising as a result of the parties not putting their arrangements in writing. The defendant, having been let into possession, had, by fitting out the shop, conducted himself as a tenant, and the onus lay strongly on him to show that no rent had to be paid. This he had failed to do. The evidence for the plaintiff's was infinitely more preferable than that of the defendant, and they would therefore be awarded judgment for the full amount, with costs (£2 8s) and solicitor's fee (£4 3s).