MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23335, 29 October 1937, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thursday, October 28 (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES Judgment by default was given for the plaintiff in the following cases:— Violet Muriel Jane Langley v. George B. Harneiss, claim £8 for money lent, with'costs (£1 Us 6d); James Brown and Son (Naseby) v. M. Menzies, claim £lO 2s 9d for goods supplied, with costs (£2 15s); John Edward Butler, Ltd., v. C. C. Hansen (Kaikoura), claim £ls 10s 4d for goods supplied, with costs (£2 14s). RE-HEARING GRANTED A rehearing was granted in the case in which Sydney H. George was proceeded against on a judgment summons by George H. Scott and in which an order was made for immediate payment of £SB 16s 7d.~Mr J. E. Matheson appeared for the judgment creditor and Mr R. King for the debtor.—After the debtor had been examined, no order was made. CLAIM FOR POSSESSION Louisa Evans (Hastings) proceeded against Athelstane B. Islip, claiming £35 5s Bd, as rent of a tenement in King street, and possession of the premises.—Mr J. G. Warrington appeared for the plain-

tiff and Mr G. F. Grieve for the defendant.—After evidence had been given on behalf of the parties, the magistrate said that the governing factor in the case was that of hardship, but it was difficult, in the meantime, to assess whose was the greater hardship, the plaintiff's or the defendant's. The case would be adjourned for a month, conditional on the rent being paid regularly, and in the meantime, the Labour Department might take some steps to alleviate the position. DISPUTE OVER CAR REPAIRS Benjamin Nelson Tait proceeded against Henry Charles Gore, claiming £ll 10s for goods supplied. The defendant counter-claimed £lO Is, the value of certain accessories alleged to have been lost while in the plaintiff's care,—Mr M. F. Hanan appeared for the plaintiff and Mr W. McAlevey for the defendant.—Mr Hanan explained that the claim was in respect of work done on the defendant's motor car between October, 1934 and January of the present year. The plaintiff commenced to overhaul the car, which was a very old model, in October, 1934, and started with the engine, the chassis being sent to Messrs Farra Bros.'s workshop, where it remained for two years. The plaintiff worked on the engine from time to time, and it was finally replaced in the chassis. The total amount owing for work and material was £2l 12s sd, and of this amount the defendant had paid £lO Is 7d on account.—ln evidence

the plaintiff detailed the work done on the defendant's car. When the car was brought to him it was in an extremely dilapidated condition-Cross-examined by Mr McAlevey, witness said that he had had 20 years' experience as a motor mechanic. He considered that the price he had charged for the job was a perfectly fair one. The usuai charge for such work was 5s an hour, whereas he had charged only 2s 6d for himself and Is 3d for each of two assistants. The battery of the car was done, and witness told the defendant so. After the repairs were completed the defendant could have had it had he desired, as it was of no use. Witness would not guarantee that there was a speedometer cable or lamps on the car when it was brought to him, and he did not consider it incumbent on him to remove these accessories nor the tools when the machine was sent to Farra Bros.—Evidence in support of the plaintiff'3 case was tendered by Nathan Wood Millard, Leonard Wilson Steffens, Hector Louden Strang and Ernest Norman Marsh.—For the defence, Mr McAlevey said that there had been an agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff that the latter was to charge 2s 6d per hour while working on the car, and that the price for the completed job was to be reasonable. When the engine overhaul was completed, the defendant understood that all that remained was to fit it on the chassis.

He maintained that the charge for this latter work was out of all reason. —Evidence as to the agreement between himself and the plaintiff was tendered by the defendant, who alleged that the plaintiff had charged up 82 hours for the work, whereas the correct time should have been 25J hours.—At this stage the hearing was adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m.