MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 19293, 11 July 1924, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CIVIL CASES. At the Magwtrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr G. Cruickshsnk, 8.M., judgment for plaintiff was given by default in the following cases:—Thomson’s, Ltd. v. F. W. Dodson £3l 10/4, costa £4 1/6; the Official Assignee in Estate James Hunter v. James Cantrick for £2 2/-, costs £1 12/6; H. and J. Smith, Ltd. v. L. G. Matheson for £7 15/-, costs £1 16/6; Watts and Grieve, Ltd. v. J. D. Stancombe for £lO, £2 6/- costs; Superintendent v. Margaret Rose Green and Irvine Lawrence Green for £2l 8/8, costs £1 16/-; Southland Farmers’ Co-op. Association v. R. McBride for £2 16/9, costs £2 2/6; Invercargill Corporation v. Catherine Sim for £l9 10/1, coats £2 14/; P. H. Vickery, Ltd. v. B. Harrison for £2 5/-, costs £1 11/6; Broad Small and Co. v. John E. Lainchbury for 17/-, costs 12/-; McKerras and Hazlett, Ltd. v. Samuel O’Connell for £2l 13/6, costs £3 9/-; Price and Bulleid, Ltd. v. George Julius Summers for £2, costs £1 3/6; Broad, Small and Co. v. John Scott for £l7 14/8, •costs £3 4/-; Hallenstein Bros. v. M. Newton for £2 2/6, costs £1 11/6; Hallenstein Bros. v. Joseph Phillips for £2 18/10, costs £1 3/6; H. and J. Smith v. F. A. Mcßride for £5 1/1, costs £1 12/6; Lindsay and Dixon v. W. M. Elder for £149 12/6, costs £7 1/6. DEFENDED CASES. F. A. Rumler (Mr Broughton) sought to recover the sum of £4 16/- for bags and chaff and alleged to have been supplied to A. E. Cocker (Mr Meredith). After hearing the evidence, His Worship ruled that no claim had been established, and gave judgment for the defendant with costs £1 1/-. E. A. Rumler also proceeded against A. E. Cocker for £49 2/-, alleged to be due in respect of sheep worried, injured and killed by defendant’s dog. The hearing of this case occupied the attention of the Court all afternoon, many witnesses being called, and the evidence was of a lengthy nature. In giving his decision, His Worship said that the case was the usual one of a dispute between neighbouring farmers. Evidence for the plaintiff had been of a somewhat hazy nature and it had not been definitely established that the defendant had been the owner of the dog in question at the time when the worrying was alleged io have taken place. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs £6 16/4.