MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22444, 15 September 1936, Page 11

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, SfM.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, with costs, in the following undefended cases:— H. and G. K. Neill v. J. Smith, £2 ss, goods supplied; Andrew Lees Ltd. v. E. Allison (Oamaru), costs only, goods supplied; Glendermid Ltd. v. C. Gray (Tirnaru), £29 10s lid, goods supplied; F. and R. Woods Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Edith White, £l7 8s lid, good supplied; Murray Townley v. Robert Fraser (Invercargill), £ls 4s 3d; Auto Parts (Otago) Ltd. v. Anthony Hearse, £1 7s 6d, goods supplied. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Annie Matilda Brundell proceeded against William Groves on a judgment summons, claiming the sum of £lB 16s, the balance owing on a motor car purchased from the plaintiff by the defendant. After hearing the evidence, in which the judgment debtor stated that since the summons had been issued he had earned-only £4 11s, the Magistrate refused to make an order, JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIP. The Magistrate gave his reserved decision in the case in which Charles Begg and Co. Ltd. claimed from Gray Russell Hunter the sum of £ls, the value of a radio set entrusted to the defendant to be carried from Oamaru to Nelson, which was not delivered. The Magistrate, after reviewing the case, said that if it could be shown that what the creditor accepted in satisfaction was the debtor’s promise and not the performance of that promise, the original cause of action was discharged from the time when the promise was made. He considered, however, that the defendant was entitled to claim that his liability was discharged pro tanto by Smith’s (Hunter’s driver) payments. Judgment would be for the plaintiff for the sum of £7 12s. SALE OF A CAR. Elizabeth Mann M'lnnis proceeded against A. H. Clarke for the recovery of £45, the price of a motor car purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the car had been purchased on the understanding that the engine was in first-class order, that the car had had only two previous owners, and that the plaintiff would receive the full amount of the purchase price back if the car proved unsuitable. It was further alleged that these representations were false to the knowledge of the defendant, or if any of the representations were not within the actual knowledge of the defendant, they were made by him recklessly and without regard to their truth or otherwise. Mr G. T. Baylee appeared for the plaintiff and the defendant was represented by Mr W. H. Carson. _ . Evidence was given for the plaintiff by Thomas Edward M'lnnes, Elizabeth Mann MTnnes, and John William Brough.