MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 53, 26 November 1920, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

—« — ■•• POLICE AND CIVIL BUSINESS. The police bußincaa in the Magistrate's Court yesterday was dealt with by Mr. J. S. Evans. S.M. . . Horace Smith was charged that on, November 17 he stole from the dwelling of D. P. Bradley, jewellery to the value or £25. On the application of Chief Detective Ward a remand until Wednesday waß granted. . Mr. A. B. Sievwr ght, w*o appeared for the accused, aßked for ball, which was fixed at one surety of £100.or two of £50 each. . _ , For drunkenness. Catherine F. Tebay (against whom there was one previous conviction) was fined 205., and Robert O'Leary (with two previous convictions) was similarly penalised. , .CIVIL CASES. Mr. W. G. Riddell. S.M.. heard, tlie .civil cases, and Rave judgment .for plaintiff in the following undefended casefli-Interna-tional Importing Co. v. J. K. Blackie. £1 Ss. 3d., costs 16i.; Scoullar and Co., Ltd., v. E. G.< Phelps, £8 45.. costs £1 11b. 6d.; H. T. Johns v. Hoke P?.tena. £10 10b., costj £3 195.; Phoenix Aerated 'Water Co., Ltd., r. R. Morrison. £20 la.,- costs £3 la.; h. U. Radford v. John Emeny, £3 17s. 9d., rests ' £1 7s. 6d.; E. T. Tii'lor and Co. v. A. J. ■ Fogarty, £7 Os. 9d., costs £1 Ma. 6d.: Edltn Poster v, Pat Poster, £29 10b., cost* £3 Is.; Thompson Bros., Ltd.. f. P. H. Hay ward, costs only £2 10s.: J. Staplos and Co.. Ltd.. v. E. G. Knapman,' £96 2b. 6d., costs £5 is. . TENEMENT OASES. Annie 'Blacltbee was ordered to give tip possession of premises to P. W. pualiitrell by December 26, and to pay £8 176. 6d. rent and £2 10s. 6d. costs. Mary Delhi urged hardship as a dorence againßt an application made by W. J. Dincen, juvenile probation officer, for an order of evictment. After hearing tno evidence the Magistrate held that the hardship would rather weigh on the applicant if the order were refused. The Magistrate ordered that the tenant vacato tiie premises by January 31 next. The applicant stated that he was at picscnt occupying rooms at the Hovs' Probation ■ Home, .and had received notice to v catc them as the Government wished to extend ''the premises, Mr. T. 0. A. H'slop apjenr- ' ed for tho applicant, and Mr. W. Perry for the tenant. R. P. Flanagan (Mr. R. Kennedy) Bo;>Khi to obtain possession of a tenement if the occupation of Isabel Coleridge ard her sister (Mr. P. H. Putnam), ihe plaintiff stated that he purchased the huise in December last with the intention of bringing his late brother's widow, who nas In Maeterton, to Wellington, in order that she might live with her daughter and son, who was a returned soldier.' The widow, it was stated, had broken down as a result of the nursing Bhe had done during tho epidemic. For the defendants. Mr. Putnam contended that no order could be made as the plaintiff did nfft require tho premteeß for his own occupation or for the occupation of. a purchaser. The defendant stated that Bhe and her sister had endeavoured to find Bultable rooms, but wero unable to pay the high rents demanded. Mr. Kennedy a.Bked. "Could you not board?" and tho wltnesn replied that they had done so, and found it an unpleasant experience. Other 'evidence was given to show that the defendants had .been unable to find prcnißcs within their means. Tho Magistrate ssid that as far aa the- question of hnrd'ih'n was concerned he must -give judgment for the tenants, for there was no hardship whatever on the actual landlord. It wan a question, howovor. whether he Eiipht r.ot have power to make an order rio'.vithStanding that, and he would look bto tho matter and give .his decision later. Mr. Kennedy contended that it xotild be a monstrous thini if two nnin?ters cculd take a aix-roomed house and keen out a widow and her lischnrgod eu.f'er son. Mr. Putnam stated that an or:!cr could only be made by disregarding the Act altogether.