MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19660, 13 September 1927, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment by default was given in tho following cases:—Fairbairn, Wright, and Co. v. P. B. Cunningham (Gore), £4 3s 4d, goods supplied; Herbert Jas. Hastie v, T. White (Caversham), £4, goods supplied; A. S. Paterson and Co., Ltd. v. V. Campbell (Mifldlcmarch), £ls Gs Cel, goods supplied; Ford Motors (Dunedin), Ltd., v. J. Trainer (Otnrehua), £2 Os 6d, goods supplied; Otago Farmers’ Co-operative Association, Ltd. v. George Strong (Clarksville), £ll2 16s 9d, goods and cattle supplied; Wright, Stephenson, and Co., Ltd., v. William Thomson, jnn. (Clinton), £1 12s Od, goods supplied; Wright, Stephenson, and Co., Ltd., v. George Strong (Clarksville), £3l 10s Bd, goods supplied; Commissioner of Taxes v. Jas. Jackson Munro, Gs, costs of judgment; Wright, Stephenson, and Co., Ltd., v. John Stewart (Clinton), ss, costs of judgment. CLAIM FOR DEBT. ReddeUs, Ltd. (Mr W. Ward), claimed from Alexander Clark (Mr B. S. Irwin), of Milton, £ll 8s 3d. an amount alleged to be duo ior goods supplied. . Evidence was given for the plamtirls as to the alleged sale, tho dolenco being that defendant had been sued some two years ago, anti did not know tho goods had been supplied. His wile denied that she bad received all the goods, but defendant had paid the account, and told Rcddels that if the goods were supplied without his authority someone else would have to (jay for them. Defendant’s wife denied having obtained anything on credit on this occasion, stating that she had paid cash for what she had received. “This is a very unsatisfactory case,’ said the Magistrate, “and I am atraid tlier© lias been some very hard swearing in tho matter.” Taking all in all, it seemed tlita tho probabilities were distinctly on tho side of plaintiff, for whom judgment was given for the amount claimed (£ll Bs 3d), with costs amounting to £4 2s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

An order for immediate payment was made as follows Leslie M'Millar v. 1). J. Knowles. Defendant ordered to pay £55 6s (costs £1 ss), in default one month’s imprisonment. CONTUACTORS’ CLAIM.

Rlaekmoro and Weir (Mr V. L. Moore), building contractors, claimed from D. P. Wilson (Mr J. S. Sinclair), licensee of the Ray View Hotel, the sum of £lO2 7s 9d for extras in regard to a contract, being for goods supplied, plumbing work done, and commission on a sub-contract. . ■ Mr Moore outlined the ease lor plaintiffs, to the effect that certain alterations had been made to the Bay View Hotel according to contract, but in addition certain extras were required by the defendant, these being earned out bv the contractors. there had been no dispute regarding tliei extras excepting the plumbing work, which hud been sub-lot to A. and T. Burt at a contract price of £166. That bad been met, and the defendant took exception to a number of items on the ('rounds that many of the extras charged should have been included in the contract. The evidence was that tho extras charged were outside tho contract. Mr Mooro later announced that defendant had paid into court £6o, though notification as to what it was for had not yet bcen_ given. The ease is proceeding.