MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Taranaki Daily News, 30 January 1931, Page 11

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CASKS AT NEW PLYMOUTH. JUDGMENTS FOR DEBT. Judgment by default was given by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., in the following debt claims in New Plymouth yesterday:—Newton King, Ltd. v, John and Albert John Kilkolly, £l5B ss. (costs £8 95.); J, Jordan v. N. Gray, £23 10s. (£4 6s. fid.); Arthur’s, Ltd., v. Kate Winthrop, £8 12s. 9d. (£1 13g. fid.);' H. Derby and Co., Ltd. v. S. H. Alvis, £5 Is. 6d. (£1 14s. 6d.); R. Hannah and Co., Ltd. v. M. J. Connell, £1 6s. (8s.); John Christoffel v. J. B. Young, £8 12s. (£1 10s. fid.); G. N. Skelton v. Weki Kapo, £l9 Os. 6d. (£3 Is.). Under a judgment summons W. Flynn was ordered to pay Dunbar’s Cash Stores, Ltd., £2 Ils. Bd. forthwith, in default two days’ imprisonment; W. Reynolds was ordered to pay B. Harris £l2 Bs. 6d., and costs £1 Is., in default 13 days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended, during the payment of £1 a month. CLAIM FOR A DINGHY, An action for damages in connection wjth thg failure to deliver a dibghy

! 1 and certain accessories due in connecI tion with the sale of a launch was concluded when, after hearing evidence for the defence; the magistrate gave judgment for F. Warne (Mr. C. H. Croker) for the. delivery of the chattels or payment of their value, £9 2s. fid., and £5 damages and £5 17s. costs against T. r Reid and Charles F. Oakes (Mr. P. r Grey). ! Reid did not appear, it being stated [ he was still ill. Oakes gave evidence of ] . his connection with the matter, the general effect being that he had not been . I owner of the dinghy or material, but an assistant to Reid. J PURCHASE OF A MILK FLOAT. A non-suit, with £3 18s. costs, was entered against Campbell's Motors, Ltd. (Mr. J. H. Sheat) after hearing evidence i on the claim against John Robinson (’Mr. , C. H. Croker) for £4O in connection with the purchase of a milk float. , The claim was made up. of £35 as the balance due on the sale, and £5 for painting an old float. The case for the plaintiffs was that the new car was sold without any condition concerning a “trade-in” of the old float, and that the saleman’s action in agreeing to look for a. buyer had no relation to the sale of the new car. Plaintiffs maintained that any endeavour to sell the old float was entirely on Robinson’s behalf, inde- ■

pendent of his new purchase. The salesman had said he would try to find a purchaser. For the defence it was contended that Robinson had stipulated that before he took delivery of the float for £2lO his old float must be sold. He had paid £5 deposit and £35 in cash, and the old vehicle was to be sold for £3's, making up a deposit of £75. He had received a receipt for this. He had not promised I Campbell to pay the money out of his milk cheques. After hearing a considerable amount of evidence about the preparation and signing of various documents, the .magistrate entered a non-suit, saying that in view of the acknowledgment of the £75 plaintiff had not discharged by clear evidence the onus of proving the position was not as Robinson had said.