MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23369, 8 December 1937, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Tuesday, December 7 "'; (Before Mr' J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES Judgment for the plaintiffs was given in the following undefended cases:— Roberts and Watkins v. Eric Hosford Thompson/claim £25 4s sd, with costs (£4 8s 6d), for goods supplied; Donald Reid and Co., Ltd., v. Hugh McLean (Southland), claim £5 5s lid, with costs (£1 12s 6d), for goods supplied; Labans Limited v. O. W. Clarke (Auckland), claim lis, with costs (8s). for goods supplied. . • JUDGMENT SUMMONSES "' "' Butterfield's Limited proceeded against Charles George Ellis claiming the sum of £3 12s.—An order was made that the sum owing, together with costs (8s), be paid forthwith, in default four days' imprisonment. William Anderson (Balclutha) proceeded against Tui Hughes,, claiming £6 14s 6d.—An order was made that the amount owing, with costs (13s), be paid forthwith in default seven days' imprisonment. CREAM SUPPLIER'S CLAIM

Ethel Maud Day proceeded against James Jersey Dairies, claiming £2 10s 6d for the balance owing on cream supplied by her.—Mr I. B. Stevenson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr J. F. G. Stark represented the defendant company.—Evidence was given by Stanley Edward Field, manager of the Co-operative Dairy Company of Otago, by the plaintiff, and by her husband, Harold Day.—Mr Robertson said that the amount involved meant a great deal to the plaintiff. She had supplied two gallons of cream on September 16 and another five gallons two days later. The plaintiff claimed that she had not received full payment for the cream, which James said was sour. —The amount of the. account was not in dispute, Mr Stark said, but the defendant alleged that the cream supplied was not according to order, and that it was not of proper quality. It could not be used as table cream E ddence was given by the defendant and by Adam Hardy Blackwood, a cream salesman.—The magistrate said that the onus was on the defendant to prove that the cream was not up to quality, and he had not done so. Judgment would therefore be for the plaintiff for the amo'.nt claimed, with costs 10s) and solicitor's fee (£1 Is).