MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22440, 10 September 1936, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for the plaintiffs with costs was given by default in the following undefended casesCossens and Black v. Thomas A. Kerr (Owaka), £4 15s; goods supplied; Brown, Ewing, and Co. Ltd v. T. Moffatt (Freshford), £8 Is 4d, goods supplied; F.. G. Smith v. Frank Pratt, £2 4s 6d, balance of account due; Leonard Hogue v, lan Williams, £l3, amount paid on behalf of the defendant in satisfaction of a promissory note. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Young Bros, proceeded against Herbert Ball claiming the recovery of £6 4s 6d on a judgment summons. The debtor did not appear, and the Magistrate made an order for the payment of the full amount, with costs, in default of seven days’ imprisonment. JUDGMENT FOR HOSPITAL BOARD. The .Magistrate’s reserved decision was given in the case in which the Otago Hospital Board proceeded against the Wellington Hospital Board to recover the sum of £3O 18s, being the amount due and • owing by the defendant board for the board, lodging, and maintenance of Duncan M'Gregor Jamieson and Noeline Brown in the Dunedin Hospital, and the board, lodging, and maintenance of Arthur Robins in the Infectious Diseases Hospital, all of whom were resident in the district of the Wellington Hospital Board within the meaning of the Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Act. Mr A. N. Haggitt appeared for the plaintiff board, and Mr J. C. Mowat for the defendant board. After reviewing the evidence, the Magistrate said that the basis of the claim was the “ cost of relief,” and in view of the evidence for the plaintiff board it could not be said that the amounts claimed were not reasonable, as they were less than the cost per occupied bed. It was also admitted for the defendant board that allowance should be made for the Government subsidy. Logically, the contention would also be made in the case of adults, and the effect would be that the cost of relief chargeable to outside patients would be less than that chargeable in the case of the board’s other patients, which would be an absurd position. Such contention could not be accepted. Judgment would be for the plaintiffs for £ls 9s, in addition to £l6 14s already paid into court, with costs.