MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 801, 20 January 1910, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held before Mr A. I). Thomson, S.M., yesterday. civil. CASKS, Judgment for plaintiffs was entered up in the following undefended civil cases:—Win. Ross and Sons, Ltd., v. T. W. Foster, claim £5 14s yd, costs 233 6d. Dr Mandl v. J. Comber, claim £5 ss, costs £\. 10s 6d. Same v. F. Shaw, claim £5 12s 6d, costs £1 7s 6d. Same v. R. G. Hickson, claim £4 13s 6d, costs 10s. Same v. O- Dawson, claim £3 ros 6d, costs 18s. Same v. J. Broad, claim £4 17s, costs res. S. M. Burnett v. T. Brock, claim £6 8s 6d, costs ys. Dr Mandl v. A. McKegney, claim £4 4s, costs 14s. P. Hennessy and Co., v. Nepia Kereama, claim £6 is 3d, costs £1 13s 6d. C. Henderson v. A. McKeguey, claim £2 10s, costs 14s. Postmaster General v. E. D. Webb, claim £1 6s nd, costs ss. Smith Bros. v. Whiti Rateue, claim costs £3 6s. A. Webb v. W. Wilson, claim ,£79 17s 40!, costs M 10s. In the judgment summons J. Webb v. Walter Anderson, there was no appearance of judgment debtor, and he was ordered to pay £2, is forthwith, in default three days’ imprisonment, TROUni.K about photos. J. H. Yerex, photographer, proceeded against A. Lazarette, to recover the sum of £2 for two enlarged framed photographs ordered by defendant, but of which he refused to take delivery.

Plaintiff, in evidence, stated that defendant had had a number of photos, taken, and he also supplied him with a framed enlargement, for which he paid the sum When plaintiff delivered the enlargement defendant said he wanted two more to give to his married daughters, but that he would not require them for about a month. The enlargements were completed, but defendant kept putting off taking delivery of them. After waiting some mouths, plaintiff left the photos at defendant’s house, but he returned them the following morning, and repudiated ordering them. In reply to defendant, plaintiff denied having asked him to take a couple of enlargements at a reduced price as he wanted the money in order to pay his rent.

Robert Howard said he remembered defendant getting one enlargement from plaintiff. He also heard defendant tell plaintiff that he wanted two more photos, but could not say whether he meant cabinets or enlargements. A. Uazarette, defendant, denied having ordered the enlargements. Plaintiff asked him to take two more at a reduced price, as he wanted the money with which to pay his rent, but witness refused. The two photos that were ordered when Mr Howard was present were cabinets, which were received and paid for. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, £ 2, with costs 14s, and witness’ expenses ss.

CI,AIM FOR RUNT. S. Messeua sued Samuel Read, to recover the sum of £$ as 3d and possession of house. The facts of the case are that defendaut is living in a house owned by Mr E. A. Coley, for whom plaintiff is acting as agent. Mr Coley requires the house himself, and instructed his agent to get possession. The agent commenced the present proceedings, but in the meantime defendant had, through his solicitor, forwarded the amount owing for rent to Mr Coley, at Palmerston North. This was returned to the solicitor with a notice to the effect that rent was payable to his agent. The Magistrate said that, according to the notice served, if the rent in arrear was paid proceed- 1 ings lor possession, would- ceaseT and- -he--therefore dismissed the case, with costs £1 is. If plaintiff desired possession another notice would nave to be served on defendant, and signed by the owner of the house.

CLAIM FOR HORSE. AND COUNTER CLAIM.

Louisa Corroll proceeded against George Reay for possession of a horse, or to recovef*the value of same, £7 10s, and £2 xos damages for unlawful detention. Defendant counter-claimed for ,£4 13s 4d lor goods supplied. The claim for damages for unlawful detention was abandoned, and defendant confessed to judgment for £7 10s, provided same was set against his counter claim. Plaintiff repudiated the meat account, stating that same was owing by her husband, and not by her. After hearing the evidence, the Magistrate gave judgment for the amount of claim by consent, £7 1 os, with costs 15s 3d, and for claimant in the counter-claim for ,£4 13s 4d, with costs £\ ss,