MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25958, 26 September 1945, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, September 25 (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.)

Judgment by default was given for Reilly’s Central Produce Mart, Ltd., on a claim against H. V. Smith (trading as Smith's Preserves), for £l6 9s 9d, with costs (£2 I4s), representing the balance owing on goods supplied. Plaintiff Nonsuited George Slckels (Mr A. C. Stephens) proceeded against Thomas Kirkland (Mr H. S. Adams) for the recovery of £sl 16s 6d, money which had been lent by the plaintiff to the defendant, or paid by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, between June 15 and August 25, 1939.—The plaintiff said that prior to the war the defendant and himself had been engaged in horse dealing on a partnership basis. In 1939 the defendant had commenced borrowing money from the plaintiff. The defendant had served overseas during the war, but neither before nor after his return had he repaid any of the money. The plaintiff admitted that he possessed no receipts of the transactions. —Evidence was also given by James McKinnon, who alleged that the defendant had borrowed £157 10s from witness about six years ago.—Giving judgment, the magistrate said the case was most unsatisfactory, as the plaintiff had no corroborative evidence in writing to support his claims. In addition, there remained the fact that the defendant was not in court and his evidence had been taken at Gore. The plaintiff’s evidence had not been sufficient to establish a case in his favour, and he would, therefore, be nonsuited. Judgment for Plaintiff Francis Bertram Turner claimed £l4 10» from Thomas William Robinson (Mr J. S. D. More) for additional repairs to a motor car which the plaintiff had purchased from the defendant.—The evidence showed that the plaintiff had undertaken to purchase the car for £35, necessary repairs to cost a further £5. Instead, additional expenditure had been entailed in repairing the car.—After - hearing the evidence, the magistrate said it was obvious to him that the plaintiff had not been accorded a full opportunity to inspect the car, and his case was an adequate one. Judgment was given for tha plaintiff for £l4 10s. with costs.