MAGISTRATES COURT.

Colonist, Volume XXXV, Issue 7265, 9 March 1892, Page 3

MAGISTRATES COURT.

YESTERDAY. ; [Before L. BBOAD.Esq., B.mJ] W. H, ingles v. Arthur Fisk: Mr Pitt tot plaintiff and Mr Harley for defendant. Thia was a claim for £1 17s 6d paid tinder protest to get effects held by defendant, and to reoover £8 damages sustained by the retention of the goods for eight days. The facts of the case were that plaintiff and hia little girl went to etay at the Nelson Hotel, plaintiff alleging that defendant's wife sgreedto take them both at 25s per week, this .was denied by. defendant who held the effects of plaintiff until 37s 63, three weeks boardfor thfe girl at "l2a 6d per week was paid. •■■ ■ ■ -■ ■ •' " After hearing evidence on both sides, his Worship Slid that he had ho doubt that plaintiff was led to believe that' the 25a included both himself and the little girl, whether he ocght 'to have inferred this was another question. As to the seoond item no evidenoe'had been given to enable the amount of damage to be accurately ascertained, bak plaintiff was entitled to nominal damages, whiohhe would put at £a. Judgment for £3 17a 6d, with'-tjosts 31s. During the case hia Worship, pointed pot chit ho' elkeepers should acquaint themselves wi.h the difference between a lodger and* guest. A landlord : had the power to detain the effects of either a lodger, dr. a gu?Bs, bat the after procedure was di tinot,