MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4473, 29 September 1922, Page 1

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M.) Judgment by default was given at the Court on Tuesday in the following cases : W. M. Sorensen v. "Wiggins and Waller, £4 19s 3d, and costs £1 14s 6d: Paeroa Borough Council v. S, Sinnett, £4 3s 2d, and costs £1 4s 6d ; Ada McGruer v. F. Rose, £ll 6s, costs £2 16s ; D. G. McKee v. Miss Brittain, £6 13s, costs £1 4s 6d; C. Burgess v. DGreen, £l3 15s, costs £.2 19s; J. G. King v. D. Green, £l2 6s, costs £2 19s; Crosby v. H. D. Sorensen, £44 6s 4d, costs £4 Ils 6d, and also possession to. be given by October 3. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. H. C. Mutton v. W. J. Sinnett, diaim £l6 17s 2d. There was no appearance of defendant and an order was made for payment forthwith, in default 17 days’ imprisonment in Thames Gaol. Maxwell and Brash v. A. Langdon, claim £32 9s 7d. The defendant said he was employed as a farm labourer at £3 10s per week, with free rent and cow found. He had a wife and five Children, the eldest being 11 years of age. He had been working for Mr. P. Corbett for 17 months, and was unable to pay anything off the debt. One child was in a private hospital in Auckland, and it took him all his time to provide food to live. Asked how. he was able to attend race meetings in the early part of the years the debtor said that it had only.cost him his train fare. He had hot paid any hospital fees and: did nd; know how he was going to do it. Tne debt had been incurred while he was contracting at the quarry, and his said he was-not prepared to make any offer. The magistrate said that he thought Maxwell and .Brash: had given defendant exceptionally good treatment, and it seemed extraordinary to him how the firm could have been so lenient with a man like him, He was satisfied defendant could make an effort to pay, and made an order for payment forthwith, in default 32 days in Auckland Gaol; warrant to be suspended so long as debtor pays 5s per week as from October 3, TANGYE ENGINE. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. In the case W. Fleming and Son, machinery agents, of Paeroa (Mr Porritt), v. The Broadway Timber Co. (Mr Ray) of Newmarket, Auckland, in which the plaintiff claimed £7O, being balance of amount due for one Tangye engine supplied to defendants in February last, which amount is disputed by defendants, as they allege that the engine was quite unsatisfactory and was not doing what it was claimed for it by plaintiffs. Defend.-/ ants also counter-claimed for expens-i es and damages to the extent of over £so'. After plaintiff and two members of the defendant company had given evidence and been cross-examined His Worship intimated that ownig to the voluminous amount, of technical evidence which: had IJen taken in Auckland, together with invoices and correspondence in connection the the claim, he would require time to go into the case and would give his decision later. CLAIM FOR BENZINE AND TYRES. INTERESTING LOCAL CASE. At the Magistrate’s Court on Tues.day, before Mr J. H. Salmon,, S.M., W. Fleming and Sop (Mr Porritt) claimed from W. Roigard (Mr Monta-* gue) the sum of: £199 9s 3d, alleged to be the amount due for motor spirit, tyres, etc., supplied tp defendant. W. Fleming, sworn, said defendant Roigard was one of his customers for benzine. The account had always been rendered monthly, and a sujn of £199 9s 3d was due to plaintiff to the end of July, 1922. NON) SUIT APPLIED FOR. At this stage Mr Montague applied for. a non-suit on behalf! of defendant on the grounds that plaintiffs claim was actually for over; £220, and, that he had split the amount of his claim to £199 odd so as. the case could come under the jurisdiction of the. Magistrate’s Court. plaintiff said this had not been intentionally done, and His Worship remarked that he was prepared tp hear further evidence. Continuing has evidence Fleming said defendant admitted that he was unable to keep the payments up to date but said he had a gilt-edge mortgage falling due in September, and would then square plaintiff up. Plaintiff offered to purchase the mortgage from defendant, but the latter would not ocnsent to that. Plaintiff said his prices for motor spirit according tp brands at that time were 24s and 26s per case, less Is a case discount. Regarding the tyres charged for, plaintiff said that defendant knew he did not stock motor tyres and asked him for a quotation for clinker tyres, which plaintiff supplied and for which the price was never questioned. Cross-examined by Mr Montague, witness said he had never approacned defendant and asked him tp deal with him, and neither was it true test he had told defendant that he could sei! benzine cheaper tap any firm in New Zealand. Witness also denied that Defendant came to him in February for the first time, and said he could not meet his account for goods supplied; also he (plaintiff) denied ever telling defendant he would stick to him and that lie could have u

squaring up every six months. Regarding the tyres, plaintiff explained that they had been supplied by Messrs Hayward Bros., of Auckland, and had been quoted at £l4i each, and were alleged tp be supplied bn a guarantee that they would run 3000 miles. Plaintiff did not supply this guarantee to defendant, plaintiff said the tyres had not given satisfaction, which was scarcely to be wondered at, considering that the roads over which defendant has been travelling were in a very rough state, and it was estimated tp cost 8d per mile for tyie wear. Plaintiff had no actual knowledge of the mileage of the tyres, but had taken: defendant’s word for, it, and had advised his agents, Hayward Bros-, accordingly. Plaintiff suggested to defendant that he interview Hayward Bros, when he was in Auckland, which he did, with the result that Hayward send two replace tyres, but defendant wou.ld not take delivery of them because they were not the coloured rubber that had been quoted and shown him. Plaintiff said the matter of replacement of tyres was entirely a matter between Haywhrd and defendant, although the four tyres were booked and paid for by him. Mr Montague contended that the price charged for benzine was over the price agreed upon, and that as the question of the defective tyi.es had not been satisfactorily settled, and that plaintiff undoubtedly offered a guarantee of 3000 miles per tyre, whereas , they had not done 1000 miles. William Roigard, boardinghousekeeper, Paeroa, sworn, said that at the time he had contracted the debt in question he had held the mail contract service between • Paeroa and Ngatea, but had since sold the contract. Plaintiff had agreed tp supply him with benzine, etc., and when defendant found the contract ,was not paying too well he straightforwardly went tp plaintiff and told him .he was unable to meet his account. This would be about February. Plaintiff assured him that he would stick to. him, and that they" would square up every six mopths or so. Regarding the mortgage mentioned,, defendant said it was his wife’s, and was giltedge. Plaintiff offered to give him £lo.o', but he would not sell', as it was worth very much more than that. After, further legal argument His Worship, in summing up, said as far as the sale of benzine was concerned he-thought plaintiff had sold according to the then current prices, and defendant had lost his discounts on each case through inability to keep up the payments. With reference to the tyres, His Worship said that apparently some kind of guarantee had been given, but he considered that plaintiff must suoceeed on his claim, leaving out the four tyres which Haywards bad undertaken to replace. Plaintiff was entitled tp judgment for the amount claimed, less £9O paid Into Court, and cost Of four tyres at £ll (£56), leaving a balance of £53 9s 3d, with costs £2 10's and solicitors’ fees £4 3s.