THE CIVIL COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 370, 11 March 1932, Page 4

THE CIVIL COURT.

Cases Dealt with by Magistrate.

Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in each of the following cases in the Civil Court yesterday before Mr H. A. Young, S-.M.: —P. and D. Duncan, Ltd., v. A. D. Fraser, £l2 7s 6d; Commissioner of Taxes v. Harry S. Smith, 4s 4d; A. Johnson v. H. Hastie, £5 10s 3d; W. J. Watson’s (Jewellers), Ltd., v. D. Sorensen, £6; Trade Auxiliary Company of New Zealand, Ltd., v. M. M. Robertson, £3 Is 9d; Kenneth Allen Hore, trading as K. Hore and Co., v. D. Mackay, £ll 11s 6d; Christchurch City Council v. D. C. Dorrance, £2 14s 9d; Bristol Piano Company, Ltd., v. F. Allen, £2 13s lid; Gough, Gough and Hamer, Ltd., v. H. E. Salter, £10; New Zealand Grinding and Gear Company, Ltd., v. Kawatiri Motors, £ll 2s lid; Bishop and Co. v. P. O’Connor, £ll 18s 9d; Mason, Struthers and Co., Ltd., v. N. H. Browne, £1 9s 7d; same v. L. Leversedge. £1 7s 9d; Trade Auxiliary Company of New Zealand, Ltd., v. H. E. Bergerson, £3 5s 6d; same v. H. Brinkman, £3 9s 9d; same v. H. K. Cutten, 15s 6d; same v. W. A. Gear, £4 2s 6d; same v. W. Gray, £1 11s 3d; same v. H. Hamer, £4 14s 9d; same v. R. N. Phillips, £5 2s 6d; same v. R. E. Williams, £6 3s 3d; Hurunui Rabbit Board v. C. F. Cone, £l3 13s 4d; Christchurch Press Company, Ltd., v. A. Hunt, £4 2s 6d; New Zealand Farmers’ Co-operative Association of Canterbury, Ltd., v. J. M. Anderson £5 19s; St Andrew's College Board of Governors v. A. E. M'Narn, £9O 8s 2d; St George Atkinson and Co., Ltd., v. S. Maffey, £3 14s; Michael Thomas Healey v. A. Cummerfield, £ll 5s 6d; F. H. Barrel! v. W. J. Peart, £2 10s; A. Still v. W. T. Lewis, £6 5s 9d; Gordon and Gotch, Ltd., v. R. V. Caley, £l7 12s sd; Jack Bros., Ltd., v. J. Wilson, £5 Is 3d; S. H. Stewart v. A. W. Anderson, possession of tenement; Beath and Co., Ltd., v. A. S. Williamson, £1 18s 6d; James Cooper and John M’Lean, £4 8s; John M’Namara, trading as Thomas Gapes and Co. v. George Brunt, £5 18s 6d. Judgment Summonses L Sutherland was ordered to pay Ashby, Bergh and Co., Ltd., the sum of £2 5s 4d forthwith, in default three days’ imprisonment. W. W. Meikle was ordered to pay J. R. Stackwood the sum of £l7 2s 6d forthwith, in default nineteen days’ imprisonment. Order for Possession. Mary Ellen Cocks, of Christchurch, as executor of the estate of the late Mary Ellen Dunn, claimed possession of a tenement from F. W. B. Dunn, of 97, Nursery Road, Lin wood, and also the sum of £49 10a rent from January 1, 1931, to January 29, 1932, at 15s a week. Defendant counterclaimed for £Bl 2s 4d for moneys paid by him on behalf of the plaintiff for repairs and other outgoings. An order was made for possession and judgment was given for plaintiff for £lO in equity and good conscience on the claim and counterclaim. Claim for Sent. Gerald Combridge, a builder, claimed £4l 19s 5d from Percy Kirby, indent agent, for rent of premises. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. as to how the Prime Minister will regard their action. This particular legislation is a vital policy matter, and in ordinary circumstances a party leader would feel justified in applying discipary measures to supporters who entered the Opposition lobby when the division bells rang. With regard to the Arbitration Bill, however, the position is different, to the extent that several supporters of the Coalition, both United and Reform, gave pledges during the election campaign that they would resist any attempt to destroy the foundation of the Act or undermine the existence of the Court.

Whether Government supporters who vote against the Bill will be sharply disciplined is, therefore, the subject of much lobby calculation, and the question is raised whether the possibility of a break with the leaders will influence votes on a vital division. There is reason to believe, however, that Coalitonists who gave electon pledges will stick to their guns, even if their action involves expulsion from the party, followed by an independent appeal to their electorates.

The Prime Minister was asked by a representative of the “ Star ” to-night what would be the position of Coalitionists voting against the Government on the Arbitration Bill. Mr Forbes was disinclined to discuss the matter, but mentioned that one or two members had informed him that they had given election pledges on the question. He added that he did not expect there would be any trouble. Asked a direct question whether members would be expelled from the party Mr Forbes gave an oblique reply. “The legislation before the House is a matter of policy,” he said.