MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 February 1924, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

' THURSDAY. FEBRUARY 7tli. j (Before W. Meldrum, Esq., S.M.) i DEBT CASKS. i E. Jatncs (.Mr Elcock) v. .) •R. Bates, c - 1 : iill i £7 Is. Judgment Tor plaintiff with costs 38,s lid. Kdilli Hcnnc (Mr Murdoch) v. Sam Eastgate, claim £lO. Judgment for ]>hiintiff with costs 3Gs. d. J. Morgan (Mr Murdoch) v. B. Lawson claim £G os. Judgment- for plaintiff, with costs 30s 6d. | EXEMPTION FROM CAMP. • Hugh B. Preston. applied for exemption from cam]). Applicant stated he was. a territorial ami was one to go into camp in February. He worked with his brothel' for his mother. If is brother was going into cam]), and he wished to carry on during his brother’s absence. Exemption granted, the Area Officer (('apt. Steelman) ottering no objection. ; Albert Howe made application for exemption from attendance at camp on the grounds that he was suffering from sciatica, and bis employer could not spare applicant. Ultimately applicant agieed to go into camp, as it would complete bis term of territorial service. I J. J. Lincoln made similar application on the grounds that he was 23 years o' age and had completed bis training, ('apt. Siedman stated, it was necessary to attend this camp to qualify for the reserve, t'apt. Stedman objected to tin application. The exemption was refused.

L. R. Ross made similar application on the grounds that bis employer required bis services. No objection by ("apt. Stedman. the applicant stating It? was prepared to serve another year before being drafted to the reserve. Application for exemption granted. A DEFENDED CASE. ,T. C. Malfrov and Co. (Mr Murdoch) v. Joseph Radomski and A\‘. J. Unsold'. Air Pilkington appeared for Mr Haseler. A claim for £ls (is 2d for timber sold and delivered to dafemlants. R. F. Peilmm gave evidence of incorporation of J. C. Malfrov and Co. The timber was supplied to Radomski and Haseler. Radomski acknowledged having drawn the money for the timliet but said lie would not pay. and witness said lie would summons for it.

AAL J. Houston gave evidence lie was manager for J. O. Malfrov and Co. He lfceived an order for timber from Radomski for timber for himself and Haseler, for repairs at Arahurn Dairy Factory. He had no confirmation of the older from Haseler.

Bernard AVard deposed he was chairmar of directors of the Arahura Dairy Factory. A contract was let for alterations to AV. J. Haseler. AA’itness outlined conversations leading up to the biting of the contract, which AY. J. Haseler signed. Radomski did practically all the work. Haseler gave an order to the Company to pay Radomski which was done.

A. 15. King, deposed lie was Secretary of the Aralnirn Daiiy Coy. He produced an order signed hy Haselcr. authorising pay men t of contract money to lladomski.

Joseph lladomski deposed he was a carpenter. Was working with Haseler. Visited Arahura with Haselcr and ultimately Haseler signed a contract for £(52. Haseler continued on a job in town, and witness went out to Arahura. The list for timber that witness gave Houston was written out hy Haseler The imher was supplied to Haseler and Radomski.

His Worship said either Haseler was a partner or else he was the contractor.

Afr Pilkington held that lladomski was solely responsible for the amount. That Radomski carried out the contract alone.

His Worship said all that was between the Court was whether these two men were indebted to the plaintiff. The question lietween the two men could he arranged later between themselves.

Mr I’ilkington said his contention was that Radomski was to carry on the contract alone.

His Worship said there was sufficient proof of partnership to enable plaintiff to succeed. Judgment was given for plaintiff lor the amount claimed against the two defendants with costs. Court costs Us. Counsel 525, witnesses 77s 3d, a total of £8 10s 2d.