MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23200, 26 May 1937, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Tuesday, May 25 (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES Judgment by default was given for the plaintiffs in the following cases:— Charles Begg and Co., Ltd., v. Mrs V. Menzies (Gisborne, claim £7 for goods supplied, with costs (£1 6s 6d); Tolley and Son, Ltd., v. D. Coutts (Owaka), claim £6 6s 5d for goods supplied, with costs (£1 13s 6d); J. and W. Faulkner, Ltd., v. Walter George Richards, claim £ll 18s 3d for goods supplied, with costs (£2 15s); William Nees and Sons, Ltd., v. Miss M. Hancock, claim 15s 3d for goods supplied, with costs (9s); Mary Dowries v. Frank Moynihan, claim £7 10s for board and lodging, with costs (£1 lis 6d). JUDGMENT SUMMONS W. Rpwlands v. Roderick Ross, claim £l3 14s Id on a judgment summons. — There was no appearance of the debtor and an order was made for immediate payment of the amount, with costs (£1 7s), in default 14 days', imprisonment. SALE OF POTATOES

. Robert Miller, farmer, of East Taieri. proceeded against George Bernard {Juyton (Abbotsford)* claiming £7 13s, the amount alleged to be owing for goods supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff.—Mr W. P. Hartstonge appeared for the plaintiff and Mr W. M'Alevey for the defendant.—The plaintiff, in evidence, stated that he had sold a quantity of potatoes to the defendant but had not received any payment.—Cross-examined by Mr M'Alevey the plaintiff said that the last occasion Guyton had obtained potatoes from him six sacks were loaded on Guyton's lorry. He denied that there were only three sacks.—The defendant's brother was working for witness when the defendant came for the potatoes.—The defendant stated that he had visited his brother, who was in plaintiff's employ, in July. About the second or third time he went there he had made inquiries about potatoes and Mr Miller had agreed to sell him some. He had taken away three bags. He asked whom he should pay for Ihem and the plaintiff had referred him to the defendant's brother. In this and later transactions he received a total of 17 bags, but the last three bags he received, he did not pay for until later when he handed money to his brother in Dunedin, receiving a receipt for the full amount he had paid.—To Mr Hartstonge: The receipt was given on the day he paid his brother for the. last three bags, not after the summons was issued.—Cecil Carlton Guyton, the defendant's brother, stated that when the defendant took away the first load of potatoes the plaintiff told the defendant to pay the witness. He did not remember exactly how much he had received. —Cross-examined by Mr Hartstonge. witness stated that he had been paid 8s a sack for the potatoes.—He could not understand how he came to give a receipt for £7 13s for 17 bags.—The magistrate said that there was no question about the potatoes being delivered, the question was whether they had been paid for. It had hot been shown by the evidence that the defendant had any authority to collect payment on plaintiff's behalf. " I am very critical regarding the evidence of the defendant's brother and of the receipt which he signed. He is a semi-clever individual, more cunning than anything else. There was a number of details he overlooked and his arithmetic was at fault." —His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs f£l 9s) and solicitor's fee (£1 6s).