MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Waikato Independent, Volume XXI, Issue 2442, 10 September 1921, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

SITTING IN CAMBEIDGE THE CIVIL CASES » . At the Magistrate's Court on Thursday, before" Mr H. A. Young, S.M., Willoughby Home (Mr D. J. Luudon) sued Eoderick McKay (Mr A. H Gascoigne) for £3 3/, veterinary services rendered to defendant's horses. The defence was that tho charges were excessive. After hearing evidence and argument judgment was given for the plaintiff for £2 2/, with costs amounting to £2 11/. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT Judgment for plaintiff by default was given as follows:—T. F. Richards and Co. v. B. Best £3 2/10, costs £1 17/0; T. F. Eichards and Co. v. J. C. Owen £3 6/4, costs £1 4/6; Matamata County Council v. Trower and Bates £B3 3/9, costs £4 10/6; Corpe Motors Ltd. v. A. Morse £8 8/, costs £2 3/6; Matamata County Council v. George Osborne £6 12/3, costs £1 10/6: Matamata County Council v. Herbert Trower £23 5/B,'costs £2 15/; Eugene .Magnus A. Mooney v. John Stanley Irvin £3l. costs £4 5/6; Oswald M. Good v. M. McClcnnan £l4 10/, costs £2 14/; G. E. Clark and Sons v. J. Bent ley £7 16/10, costs £1 11/6; G. E. Clark and Sons v. A. Taylor £2 11/4, costs £1 5/6. , POSSESSION OF A HOUSE An action was brought by Peter Gunnison Cormack, gardener (Mr S. Lewis)' against Harry Bishop, hairdresser (Mr A. H. Gascoigne), for the possession of a tenement recently purchased by the plaintiff, but occupied by the defendant for the past fifteen months.

The plaintiff, who is employed by the Cambridge Bowling Club as caretaker, stated in evidence that by the permission of the club he had been living in the pavilion and this was most inconvenient as no cooking appliances were among the appointments. Added to thesodiscomforts his wife was compelled to do the washing about half a mile away and do most of her cooking at a friend's house: Plaintiff stated that his wife was suffering from a sprained ankle and as living in the. pavilion necessitated mounting two flights of stairs the hardship entailed was considerable. He had two in the family, and they had suffered considerably during the winter months owing to there being no fireplace in the premises. The defendant on being called stated that for some months past he had been endeavouring to procure other premises but owing to the prevailing shortage of house property his efforts had been futile. He had one child in the family, and his wife was in delicate health. Asked by his counsel as to what he would do in the event of his having to leave his present residence and not: beins; able to procure another one, he stated that he would have to leave Cambridge and thereby sacrifice his business.

The magistrate in reviewing the position said that he had to determine which party was suffering the greater hardship—the defendant in having to move out or the plaintiff by being kept out of possession. In his opinion the plaintiff's hardship was the greater and consequently an order for possession would be made and possession given within fourteen days.