MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1416, 17 April 1912, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Beforo Dr. M'Arthur, S.il.)

THE. KIOSK CASE,

LESSEE MUST QUIT PREMISES. On Tiiurs-lay last, in the Magistrate's Court, bei'Di-e Dr. .M'Arthur, S.M., the Ivelburne and Karori Tram Co., Ltd., sued Maxwell Spcns-Bhck for possession of the Kelburne Tea Kiosk, ami for .£ll Os. 2d. rent, alleged to bu duo on that business. Mr. (J. H. Izard represented the plaintill .company. Mr. T. Neave appeared for the defembnt. Yesterday, Dr. M'Arthur delivered judgment in the case. At tho hearing, Mr. Izard had stated that the claim was one for possession of tho premises, tho of which had ended, and for rent in arrear. Defendant had had a three months' lease, which had expired on December 20, 1911, and he had exercised a right to renew this lease. The renewed lease had ended on March 20,1012. Defendant had been applied to for possession, but had not left the premises. Every latitude had been extended to him, but ho still remained at the Kiosk, and by defending this action, it seemed that he still refused to quit. On behalf of defendant Maxwell SpensBlaclt, Mr. Neave had addressed the Court with a view to showing that defendant's lease did not expire until June 20. This, he said, was clear from the provisions of the lease. He held, also, that as the terms of the lease would have to be construed, owing to the documents' ambiguity, the lower Court should not adjudicate In the matter.

His Worship commented on Mr. Noave's contention that thev jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court had boon ousted. Counsel, his Worship said, had cited the New Zealand case of Stansol v. Lane, but this case was dearly distinguished from the present case, and, moreover, the Judge's decision in that case would not stand as law, since the inclusion of Section 30 in the Magistrate's Court Act, 1008. The clause in the deed did not give a renewal up to June 20. The only renewal granted by the deed had expired on March 20, and no mere Assertion of title was sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the. Magistrate's Court. Judge Dcnniston had held that a magistrate was entitled to insist upon some evidence that there was more than mere assertion. Hut the moment that there was sufficient evidence to show that the claim for title was seriously asserted, and was supported by evidence (which, if true, might sustain it), the magistrate's jurisdiction was ousted. In the present case there was no such evidence. Judgment was for plaintiff. Mr. Izard applied for the issue of a warrant for immediate possession, and this was granted, but will bo suspended for seven days. UNDERTAKERS' CLAIM. Ritchie and Parsonage, undertakers, Newtown, sued T. J. Martin, K. K. J. Martin, and Mrs. James Martin for .£ls 10s., which nmoftit was said u> represent the balance owing in connection with the furnishing of a funeral. Mr. E. J. Kitzgibbon appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. 1 , . W. Jackson for the defendants. Mr. Ftizgibbon slaleil that T. J. Martin was the father of James Martin 'deceased), that li. E. J. Martin was a brother, and Mrs. Martin his widow. The two first-named had not filed a notice of defence. In evidence. T!. E. J. Martin said that ho had given the order respecting the funeral, but in doing so had merely been acting for Mis, Martin, As they had not filed notice to defend*

judgment wns given against '!'. J. and 1!. I-*. .1. Martin. The claim ngain-t .Mrs. Martin was dismissed on the ground that thri'p wns no direct evidence lo show thai she had ordered the funeral. rxj)i:iT.xj)i;i) casks. In th? following cases jiul-menl was entered for I lie plaintiffs liv' delnilU:/ealandin. Co-operative Woodwaro C.i. v. Henry Collins Cochrane, ,C 2 10-., co-ts 1-s.; Rosenberg and Co. v . K ro »|k. Mills, JM hi., costs ]•!<.; Wardell Hro«. and Co. v. Lewis Jlulhny, M 7s. Kid., costs 10s.; \\ liitcnmbi. and Tombs v. .1. 0. W. Lun?ston, ,t:i 10s., costs Ills.; >i,w Zealand Mate Guaranteed Oflita v. Geo. Henrv Jlradley. .r.22 Us. -Id., c ,)sl.s X'l 15s; ><■ Ji. Dickensou v. Kichard ft. J'ullbrooke. 4:1 -is. .],!„ < n <u -,< . «.„„,,' v | n ,, e Millard & Bs.. costs lfK;'(Jhas. Hogg and Co., Ltd., v. Henry Cothran, XI 13s. Bd., Cj's 1 "? 10s.; Smith and Smith, Ltd., v. White and Clark, Ml 15s. Bd., costs .Hi His.; Stewart 'J'imber, Glass, and Hardware Company, Ltd., v. Wm. Francis } r ork,,Rnbert J. L. York, Clarence Hoy York, M lGs. Bd.. costs 75.; Charlotte Styles v. George Stafford SI vies, 0:31, costs £°M*.; Walla* Jl. Stewnrf, Louis Urako, and .las. Renfrew v. John 11. Whilaker, .£l3 j Ms. 7(1., costs .CI )os. lid.; Wellington Drivers Union v. Geo. Gardener, .£1 35., coats iis.; siimo v. Clauilo Etoveneaux, J!l 35., costs ."is.; same v. John Whiskers, .£1 35., costs fis.; same v. Joremiali Jl'Mahoii, .£1 35., costs as.j 11. Oscar Hewett v. John Wluttaker, .£lO 10s., costs £\ 10s. (id.; AVelsbach Light Co. v. Win. Dick, .£lO 10s., costs XI 10s. fid; G. S. Hill and Co. v. Jas. and Martha Donaldson, £i 25., costs 155.; South British Insurance Co. v. Edward lilomi field, J2l 135.; costs 8s.;• Louis Good»er v. Chas. Pye, ,£2 12s. Gd., costs 10s.; Win. Henry Suckling (liquidator of Messrs. H. O. Hewitt and Co., Ltd.), v. Tβ Iriroa Hotu,-J;8 10s., costs £\ 12s. (id.; Jas. Nieol v. Krnest J. I), lienge, .£2O 3s. 3d., costs .£2 Ms.; Magnus, Sanderson and Co., Ltd., v. Martha M'Gregor, .£74 18s., costs ,£1 10s.; Thos. H. Oates.v. Thos. Peter Eustege, «C 2 fis., costs 125.; Frank Grady v. Kbeuczer D. H. Buchanan, .£2 10s.. cosls 10s.; Wellington City Council v. Ernest Collins, .£3 os. 7d., costs 55.; and-.Tas. Patterson v. Roland T. linger, .£lB as., costs ss. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Jas. Alfred Watt was ordered to pay .£27 12s. 4d. to H.Jf. the King by April 30. In the case of Wardell and Co. v. Duncan Campbell, a claim for X's Os. Bd., defendant was ordered to pay the amount bj-. April 30. AFFRAY IN CAFE. MAN FROM OTAKI FINED. Patrick Parker was charged with assaulting Robert Yarrow, tho keeper of (he Star Cafe, Lambton Quay. Parker, who was represented by Jlr. Sa'lck, pleaded not guilty. Robert Yarrow, the keeper ,of the cafe, stated, in tho course of his evidence, that Parker and two others had entered his pieinises at about li p.m. on Jlondav last. When they had .got about half-way through their meal, Parker had called to witness: "I say." Witness then asked: "Is there anything you want?" and witness presently became nwaro that they were merely calling him back "to makea fool of him." Subsequently Parker had struck witness -while he had some plates in his hands. He had, in fact, knocked witness insensible. None of the three had paid for their m'cal. Mr. Salck: AVill you tell me what jou said to him? Witness: I said, "What a clever devil you are!" Why did you say that?—" Because he niado a fool of me." What happened then?—"He knocked me down." Is it not a fact that you cracked him over the head with a sugar basin?— "It is not a fact." Is it not a fact that you had been drinking hard that afternoon?—" No." W. Phillips (an employee at the cafe) and Jlrs. Yarrow gave evidence that they had seen the str.iggle. Parker deposed that he had only come, down from Otaki on Monday..■'"■ The three of us," he said, "went into the fish shop to have supper. I said 'I say' to my mate, and was going to tell him that I had seenan old school frioml; but Yarrow turned round s-nd said: - 'You're a clever , aren't you.' He also declared that Yarrow had attacked him with crockery. Peter Jl'Grath, who had been with Par"ker. substantiated the defendant's version of tho affair. His Worship said that though- Parker may have had reason to defend himself, he had conducted his de r eiicc with too fei'cat severity—with unnecessary severity. Parker was lined £1.

HOPE'S BAIL KEDUCED: Recently James Henry Hope, (lie Iteepor of premises in Lower Cuba Street, was charged with having illegally sold liquor, and was committed lo the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was fixed at .CSO. Yesterday, Mr. C. K. Dix, who had represented Hope during the hearing of the case, applied to Mr. \V. G. Kiddell for a reduction of the amount of bail. Hope, lie said, had been unable to get the J)SO, but could manage a lesser amount—in fact, the police had .CGO in their possession. Mr. Dix asked that the amount required should be reduced to .£6O. His Worship agreed. WOMAN SENTENCED, Mary Johnston was . sentenced p to one month's imprisonment for being idle and disorderly.