MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11492, 27 January 1903, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

DEFAULT OASES. Mr R, Beetharo, 8.M., gave judgment for the plaintiff), in the following deSb Pollock fill Is 8d; "Cyxjlopftdia" Company (Mr Pleriwr) v Kdward Adams, £2 8s; earn* v W. D. Litttlejohn. £4 15s 6d: yj? ▼ Th «"»« Ktom, £4 13s 6d; same V B. S. Peimey, £2 6s 9d; same vH. Mow*, £3 Os 3d; same vJ. Park, £4 lls; same r *. G. Lawn, £4 17e; same v R. G. Pannelly, £2 7s lid; game v A. Diokson Sβ Id; same v J. E. Newton, £4 lls 9d • same vM. H. Hamilton, £6 3s 3d; same v J. A. MfeKeima, £9 8s 6d; came v J £? U ? trt^, £9 fts M '> same yE - Maxwell, £3 3» 10d; some v R. E. Schofleld, £4 13s 10d; A. G. Healing and Co. v J. P Duggan, £14 13s 8d; W. H. Harris v C. W. Symons, £60 2s 9d j Sarah W. M*ng v E. Richards, £6; Aahby, Bergh, and Co. (Mr Cowliehaw) v F. Pottef and W. R. Breaker, £15 8s; game v Peerle&j Incubator Co.,' £51 12a 9d (immediate execution was granted). CLAIM FOR RENT AND POSSESSION. George James Meadows claimed £8 -gs from George Vale (Mr Leathern) for rent owing, and afso applied for on order directing the defendant to deliver up possession of the premises. Judgment was giwn for the plaintiff-for £8 2s, and the defendant was ordered to dfeKreir up possession in seven daysCLAIM FOR THREE PONIES. Th* Cferk* wad the judgment of Mr H. W. ■ Bisliap, S.M., in the case of William Johnston v Agaie.s Johmston, and J. Alexander Johnston, wherein the plaintiff sought to recover from his wife ami eon possession of three ponies, which he alleged were his property, and were detained by the defendants. The diefandante alleged that the ponies had a/.ways been the exclusive property of the plaintiff's »n, and had never been in any way tfajroed by the plaintiff as his property until family" differences a rose. His Worship, in giving judgment, said tihat in hie opinion all the facts went to prove that the plaintiff -was not entitled to an order for possession. Since the commencement of the hearing of the eas#. and while it was adjourned for the production of further evidence, the plaintiff had +Pj<nuzht proper t>o forcibly remove the ponies from the possession of the defendants, having, during the progress of the case,- ascertained from the evidence of the male defendant where the ponies had been placd for safe custody. Apart from the fact that such a proceeding wae, in hia opinion, very improper, and highly discreditable, he should, if necessary," have considered the paintiff's action as affording sufficient evidence of the weakness of his en.se, to have justified him in refusing the remedy he sough r. or pretended t« seek. In any ease, he would most certainly have refused an order for the possession of animals which were proved before

' judgment to be no longer in the possession 'of the defendants. Judgment would be for the defendant*, with ooste. Mi , Hunt, for Mr Hurvey, appeared, for the plaintiff, ,-uid Mr Lane, for the defendants. His "Worship allowed immediate execution for cost's.