MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 19311, 1 August 1924, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

YESTERDAY’S BUSINESS. A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday morning, before Mr G. Cruickshanks, S.M. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintiff was given by default in the following cases:—J. H. Tattersfield v. R. H. Bennett, for £2l 12/6, costs £4; H. Cundall v. Clifford Bryce, for £6 1/10, costs £2 4/6; H. Cundall v. Charles Reynolds, for £l6 11/2, costs £3 4/-; Herbert Haynes and Co. v. Johanna McKenzie for £1 19/6, costs 8/-; R. G. Speira v. A. McDonald, for £l3 16/11, costs £2 14/-; J. H. Tattersfield v. Arthur T. Morgan, for £34 15/7, costs £4 2/6; T. L. Evans v. H. Anderson, for £7 17/11, costs £2 3/6; P. Collins v. Cecil C. Quested, for £5 1/3, costs £1 10/6; Dr S. Brown v. Geo. Low, for £3 3/-, costs 8/-. RESERVED JUDGMENT.

Reserved judgment was given by his Worship in the case of Michael and Sarah Carney (Mr H. Macalister) v. Joseph Roberts (Mr Eustace Russell), a claim for £lOO damages for loss of employment contrary to the terms of the engagement existing in the agreement between plaintiffs and defendant for the sale of the medical book “Vitalogy.” His Worship ruled that authorities showed that in such agreements, notice of termination was not required, unless of work actually done by the agent. The plaintiffs had sold several copies of ‘Vitalogy,” which defendant refused to supply. He would therefore allow for plaintiffs £lO, costs £4 5/-. For the counter claim, defendant would be allowed the full amount, £36 14/6, costs £4 13/-.

The case of E. Robinson (Mr Hewat), v. C. Mulligan (Mr Horace Macalister), a claim for £6 2/4, being balance of interest due on an agreement of sale, judgment was also given. The question submitted to the Court was what was the current rate of interest on July 1, 1923, his Worship deciding that it was 6 per cent, and giving judgment for plaintiff accordingly, with costs £2 1/-. DEFENDED CASES. A. McLean (Mr Kelly) claimed from H. Bates (Mr Broughton), the sum of £6 9/6, being balance of purchase money due from the sale of a heifer. F.or the plaintiff, Mr Kelly said that the heifer had been sold to the defendant for the amount claimed, plus a bull calf, valued at £l, which was paid as a deposit. Defendant had kept the heifer for some months, and had then asked plaintiff to take it back. Plaintiff had lost the use of the heifer for the period defendant had it in his possession, and defendant had previously expressed himself as satisfied with the purchase. For the defence, it was contended that defendant only took the heifer on trial, after being approached and asked to purchase same, by plaintiff. Raymond Duncan, sawmiller, said that for a time the heifer was grazing on his property. He considered that it was not worth more than £3.

His Worship ruled that there was no doubt that a sale had been effected. If he was dissatisfied with the heifer, defendant had kept it a very unreasonable length of time. Judgment would be given for the plaintiff for £6 9/6, cotfs £3 2/-. Thomas Harrington (Mr Stout) claimed from John Murray, coal merchant (Mr Eustace Russell), the sum of £3, due in respect of damages done to a fence belonging to plaintiff, by defendant’s dray. For the plaintiff, Mr Stout said that on April 17, a cart belonging to defendant, and driven by a man in his employ, ran into plaintiff’s fence, causing certain damages. Plaintiff wrote to defendant on two occasions, but received no reply. He had the fence repaired, and the account was sent to defendant.

Robert Johnston, carpenter, gave evidence as to repairing the fence. The account rendered was of a reasonable nature, and was based on the ruling prices for the timber used.

John Murray said that he had only received one letter from plaintiff, as a consequence of which he authorised his foreman to repair the fence. When the timber to effect the repairs was taken to the spot, the gate was found to be padlocked, and the timber had to be thrown over the fence.

Wm. Mules, a carter employed by John Murray, said that his horse had backed into the fence, breaking one post and knocking off a rail. E. Maxted, foreman for John Murray, said that he examined the damage done to the fence. Only one post was broken, and one rail knocked off.

The Court at this stage adjourned to' enable his Worship to view the fence, and the case was held over till this, morning. SEPARATION. On the grounds of failure to maintain, Christina McFadgen was granted a separation order from her husband, John McFadgen, with a maintenance allowance of £1 17/6 per week.