Magistrate’s Court

Southland Times, Issue 10912, 12 April 1907, Page 3

Magistrate’s Court

THURSDAY, 11 th APRIL. (Before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M.f UNDEFENDED. Judgment was delivered for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases ; W. Todd ‘and Co. v. John Hayes (WyndhomA for £3. with 5s costs 1; Jas>. Donnelly v. W. H. Fox. for £2 2s. with 5s eosts ; John Murray (Mr J. F. LilHcrap) v. M. Spear, for £f> 10s f *d. with . s coeds. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. In the Case P. W. Constable (Mr Evans) v. T. P. Kelly, nri order was made for the amount' <£3 IDs forthwith, in default seven days imprisonment ; warrant not to isaua 90 lone ns debtor pays an instalment of 10s per monthA CYCLE CASE. The Invercargill Cycle Co. cl.'uiied from F. Blick the sum of £2, balance ewing on the purchase 0: a bicycle. Mr j. Moffett appeared for defendant, who disputed the claim. Wm. Maxwell, manager of the plaintiff company, said defendant purchased a secondhand bicycle from him on 2-lth March, 1900 for £ll 10s. and finer got it fitted with free wheel and brake at a further cost of £2. Defendant paid Of! £G in instalments and then returned the bicycle, for which he was credited with £5 I Os. leaving the balance sued for. In cross-examination by counsel, plaintiff admitted that he had sent out a statement crediting debtor with fiG i 9 lor the bicycle, and explained that be had made repairs to the machine _ atut had it -sold by auction, receiving to 1P»He accordingly reduced the credit to debtor to that amount. Debtor did not see him about the account till the day tho summon? was taken out. Hie claim was not for the amount, oi free wheel and brake, but for balance of the whole transaction. ■ - . Frederick Blick, defendant, deposed that, he had returned the bicycle because he was annoyed at receiving a letter every time his instalment was a day overdue. When be made the last payment ho understood that that amount was In lull settlement. When he asked about the £2 he was told it was for the free wheel and brake, and plaintiff offered to square the matter fer 255, if paid by a certain date, but witness did not reply to tnis. The bicycle was in. fairly trood condition when returned. In reply to a question by plaintiff, witness denied promising to settle for 255.

’ Him' Worship. in reviewing the efise, eaid that it was plain that when the bicycle was returned defendant was credited with £0 7s. The bicycle "as put into the auction room mid sold for i-5 103, and the difference, was the plaintiffs loss. He therefore gave judgment for plaintiff for £1 :ss. with Cs costs. THOMPSON- V. HARVEY AND EDUCATION HOARD. The Magistrate gave reserved judgment in the case J. W. Thompson i judgment creditor) Sr. J tunes Harvey (judgment debtor) and the Southland Education Board (sub.debtor). an application. to make absolute a judgment order interlocutory. The Magistrate said that the question for decision was whether the whole transaction between, the southland Farmers’ Co-operative Association and the judgment debtor amounted to an equitable assignment or an absolute as-

Bignment within the meaning of tho Act. Under section 46 of the Property Law Consolidation Act, 1905, it was necessary to give notice to the holder of the fund before in law there was an effectual passing and transfer of the legal or equitable right to the fund affected by tho ti-ansfcr. It had to be borne m mind that the judgment creditor's priority rested not on the fact that his attachment order was served on the subdebtor before notice of the Association s order was given to the sub-debtor, but because the transaction between the judgment debtor and the Association did not amount to an assignment within! the meaning of the rules as to equitable assignment or of the provisions of section 46. As at the date of the service of th< interlocutory order on the sub-debtor there had accrued due and sufficient salary to the sub-debtor to satisfy the amount mentioned in the order, it nanSt bo made absolute, unlesd there wore other reasons to the contrary not yet aiscussed. The only other reason urged against matfiifg the order absolute was that by the provisions of the Wages Attachment Acts 1695. the wages of the sub-debtor up to £2 per week were projected from attachment. The answer to that contention was that .the judgment debtor, being a primary school teacher, under the Education Act. 1904, was not a workman within tne meaning of the Act of 1895. Lastly, whether, the endorsement on the voucher was taken; as

ion order or a> bill of exchange : it vras unstamped, and therefore imuimlsslblo in evidence until it was stamped The inter-* locutory older was' therefore made absolute with coats against the Judgment, debtor amounting' to sa.—Mr Vf- A; Stout appeared for the judgment debtor..