LEVIN MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Shannon News, 19 February 1926, Page 3

LEVIN MAGISTRATE'S COURT

FEBRUARY SITTING. The -monthly sitting of the Levin Magistrate's Court was held toy Mr J. L. Stout yesterday. v UNDEFENDED CASESJudgment for plaintiff by default in the non-appearance of defendant was entered in the followiing civil cases: H. Cane v. E. Beech, for costs only - 13/. Levin Sawmilling Go. v. J. Randall, A. Randall, and M. J. Randall, claim £46 4s '2d, costs £4 lis 6d. E. Diekhoff v. J. Anderson, claim £3/2/6, costs 28/6. A. F. Mudgway v. G. B. Oldfield, claim £lO, costs 30/6. Park and Adams v. A. Cooper, claim £l-2/19/, costs £3. D. S. Mackenzie v. M. D. Muir, claim £2 12/6, costs 29/6. S. Frechtling v. E. J. McLeavey, claim £ll 11/, costs £2 19/. S. Frechtling v, A. G. Griffin, claim £7 11/, costs 30/6. J. Klue v. E. Higgs, claim! £2 15/8, costs 25/6. - Angoustis Agapitou v, Paora Hirama, claim £2 18/6, costs 23/6. W. E. Apps v. H. Cresswell, claim £4 16/9, costs 23/6. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Orders were made for payment in the following cases, in default the usual term of imprisonment: A.. J. Mark v. Heremaia Kita, claim £9 12/B.—Order made for payment otf £3 per month 1 . ■U. O'Regan v. ,W. Shaw, claim £7 16/4.—Order for £2 per month. P. O. von Hartitzsch v. A. Cooper, j claim £7 3/.—Orden made for balance £1 13/. Goldberg Advertising Agency v., E. Webber, claim £4 19/6.—Order for payment forthwith. J. Piel v. W. .S. Free, claim, £5 4/. , Order made for payment of £1 per month, with costs 15/6. ■RI. Rieid v. E. Bevan, claim £7 15/3. * —Order made for payment forthwith, costs 15/6.

CLAIM FOR FURNITURE. Andrew Johnson, of Shannon, sought the recovery of £2o' from his son, Frederick W. Johnson, in respect of furniture allegedly sold. Mr Moody appeared for plaintiff and Mr Fletcher for defendant. Andrew Johnson deposed that his son and daughter were getting married in 1922 and witness* was going to live with the latter. Has son agreed to take witness's furniture for £2O. He would not have sold ft to anyone else for that as it was ini good condition and worth much more. He first asked for payment about a, year after the sale and had often asked since but had not got the money. He had had a difference with his daughter-in-law to which he lattritouteid some of the trouble that had taken place.

Cross-examined: Witness only took the piano out of .the house when die son was married. "Re'denied that last August was the first time he asked for payment, or 'that some, otf the chairs claimed for were given to another eon. Defendant stated his father 1 left witness's house the day he was married. Atfter witness went away his father took what he required and left the rest. It was still stored there for him. Witness went through the list and enumerated what was left. Witness denied having 'bougltit any of the levniture. H? had plenty of his own before his marriage. His father was welcome to take away his property wlie- 1 ' ever he wanted to. He had never fceen asked for payment by his father. Witnesses furniture was insured for £l5O before he got married showing that he had a considerable quantity of it.

The Magistrate said that if plaintiff had a legal claim it should have been brought years ago or he', ought to have something in writing to show that he had a claim. The son said he had taken some of his furniture and could take the Test' and that seemed the best course to follow. He would nonsuit plaintiff and he could take his furniture away. \ An application by the son for witness's expenses was disallowed. RESERVED JUDGMENT. In the case of Pringle v. Bevan, claim for interest heard last court day, the Magistrate gave written judgment In his opiinion plaintiff was entitled to-succeed. He was satisfied from the evidence that the interest had not ""been paid. Defendant claimed- that as a discharge bad been executed and registered, plaintff could not recover. The Court had no jurisdiction to have the discharge amended or set aside, ■tout so far as the personal covenant to pay interest was concerned the discharge was only a receipt and a receipt for money though contained in an instrument under seal, was not conclusive evidence that the money had been in fact paid a-nd evidence could be given of non-payment. The Magistrate quoted authorities and the Judicature. Act, providing that the rules of equity should prevail when at variance" with the rules of common law. The rule allowing\ a Court to disregard a receipt where satisfied ■ S°Z money was a rule in equity and the Court could apply it where *£ ter of the ac'tion was wrta distion.- in any event the Court was of opinion that where the amount did riot exceed £SO judgment could bei given under the equity aud /ood conscience clause when satisfy the amount contained in a receipt had not < been paid. . judgment was thereto r». jt.ven for £l2 15s and costs. -Attlie Insuring Mr Free appeared for plaintiff and Mr Adams for defendant.