Magistrate's Court

Southland Times, Issue 19089, 3 July 1903, Page 4

Magistrate's Court

. 'I^URSDAyV 2nd JULY. (Before Mr McCarthy, $.M.) ADJOURNMENT. Midas Goldmining Company (M>s Stout) v. J. Moffett (Mrr Rattray), . claim £30, calls on shares. -->' Mr Rattray made an application for an adjournment for- -one month, tp. order to secure the ' attendance of a material witness, Mr Gy'OAway. Counsel had been instructed that Mr. Otway had just returned to Auckland- from Melbourne, , and he was not; expected , in Invercargill for three weeks.,- „ ;..:.- Mry Stout opposed^ the application. The case had been Yonce: jniijourned owing to pressure of bus_«>ss,' and no mention was then made vol __r; Otway _9 :' a material- witness. .: Th«Twit_,__' conneition with thY affair had te©n very pbort, and

Mr E. Otway could be called to givo evidence, in his placo without prejudice to the defendant. Counsel admitted that Mr Gv Otwdy had Leen privately men-: tioned to him as a witness, hut tho (first adjournment was not granted to secure his presence. The "Magistrate said that thero was no reason for a month's adjournment, but he would, grant three- weeks, the costs to bo held over in the meantime. TjNDEFEjN'UEU. J'Udglment for plaintiffs was <riven by default in tho following cases: — •). W. Thompson v. D. Mason iflVanganui), claim £13 13s 10d, costs 15s ; South- i land Counl^' Council v. S. McDowell, claim £2 17s od, cost 9 8s ; W. Todd and ; Co. v. J. Harrington, claim £11, iiosts . 5s CHANGE OF VENUE. ' T. Mortimer v. J- Niud, claim £10 damages for breach of warranty in sale of a horse, an application by defendant for change of venue from Invercargill to Christchurch. — Mr Raymond for plain till to oppose, and Mr Stout for defendant to support. Mr Stout said that this case had previously been adjpurned for a week to allow the plaintilT to' nle an affidavit in reply to that filed by the defendant in applying for a change of venue, but he had not done so till thnt morning. The plaintilT claimed £'10 for breach of warranty of a horse sold to him by defendant in . Christchurch, alleging that . tho horse had been falsely warranted sound. The defendant was prepared to call witnesses in Christchurch to prove that ho had not given any warranty, nnd thnt . he had informed plaintiff that the horse was fast but unsound. It was suggested by the plaintiff that the horse was bum-ble-footed and suffered frqm ringbone, but this was alleged after it had been in his possession for live months. It was not a question of tho horse's condition at that timo. but at th© time of sale. The cause of action distinctly arose m Christchurch, and the case should be sent there for adjudication. Mr Raymond said that tho delay in filing affidavits was due to the fact that the plaintiff's witnesses were not easily accessible*. The plaintiff had not had an opportunity of inspecting the horse ut Christchurch, aud did not do so until it had been a> fortnight in Southland. The Court should also consider the preponderance of convenience, as plaintiff had a considerable number of witnesses to call in Southland, land to Mike them to Christchurch would not be worth his while in this case, owing to the hoa'\<v txpense. The Magistrate said that tho only evidence tho Southland witnesses could give would be as to the condition of the horse after the transaction hud been completed. The Magistrate's Court Act held that a case should be held in the Court nearest the place where the cause of action arose-; unless a more convenient place were agreed upon. Looking at all the circumstances he wus convinced that the case would be miore conveniently tried in Christchurch, where the cause of action arose, and he should therefore grant the 'application, costs of the Court being awarded.