DUNEDIN S.M. COURT. Thursday. September 9.

Otago Witness, Issue 2896, 15 September 1909, Page 26

DUN EDIN S.M. COURT. Thursday. September 9.

(Before Mr H. Y. WLddoweon, S.M.) Judgment tor plaintiff was given in thefollowing m*dU»fende<l cases: — E- J. Bryant v. Walter Kennedy, claim £7 10a, balance owing on promissory note, with costs lla (in this case judgment by confession was entered against one defendant, and a third defendant had not been served) ; James Wright (Mr W. L. Moore) v. Alfred E. Edwards (Invcrcargill), claim £7 lSe 9d, for goods supplied, with ocsts £1 3s 6d; M'Leod Bros. (Ltd.) v. W. H. Frankitt (Lower Kokatahi), claim £6, for goods cold and delivered, with £1 13 a6d costs. A Rimily Jar. — John Burns sued Cecilia Paterson, his mothex-ih-law, for detaining his furniture, claiming £5 for- the detention and £6 10s damages.— Mr Scurr, for plaintiff, stated tifat Burns and his wife had separated, but were now living together. The wife had taken the furniture to her mother's, and that lady, in 6pite of several applications, had declined to givo it up. — John Burns said that if the defendant bad not interfered the separation between him and his wife would never h<ue come about. His furniture was in her house. He did not know how it got there. He valued it at £6 10s, and ite detention hod coat him 15s a week, beca-uie baing without it he had had to rent furnished apartments, and when this became too extensive lie had boarded his children oxit. To Mr Hanlon (for defendant) : The furniture consisted of a sofa, washstand, buckets, brooms, bite of linoleum, and three chairs. — Anode Burns, plaintiff's wife, stated that on separating from her husband she had taken the furniture to her another's. There were items which had aob been sued for, and these, witth the rest, belonged to plaintiff. Her mother refused to hand over the furniture because she eaid witness owed fcer for board and lodging. This was not true. Her mother had agreed to board her free, providing she .'did the housework. Witness said ehe had not sold any of the furniture. A Mrs Smith had made hex an offer for some of it, but no bargain, had been made. — Mr Hanlon contended that plaintiff should be nooeuited on the ground -that no speoifio demand had been made for the goods. — The Magistrate pointed out that on plaintiff's evidence the furniture was worth £3 ss, *.nd on that of his wife £2 3e. He would reserve Mr Hanlon's point, as these sort b£ cases should be threshed out on thoir merits. — Mr Hanlon said defen3ant was prepared to hand over the articles claimed provided the consent of c. third g>ai-ty, t>aid

to bo interested, was. obtained. — Mr Scurr U'flged that to fepecify every article claimed in the demand would have bean an absurdly ixjnderous procedure. — Mr Hanlon eaid that if the Magistrate would nonsuit plaintiff ■without c<y.sts his would Ka.n<J tJbe goods over when called for. She had been willing to do this all along.— The Magistrate, consenting, said he hoped this little case would not lead to an everlasting estrangement between the principals.