LEVIN MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Shannon News, 21 May 1926, Page 2

LEVIN MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CIVIL OASES. At the Lev,in Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., the following civil cases were heard: — JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT. There being no appearance of defendant, judgment was given for plaintiff in each of the. under-men-tioned cases:— The State Advances Office v. Hugh Vallance, claim, £ll 6s 10d, costs £1 Bs. D. S. Mackenzie v. It. -Ryder, claim £5 11s, costs £1 Ids 6d. It. Reid v. H. Ryder, claim £2 18s 6d, eosts £1 3-s 6d. , R. .T. Acheson v. Zelma Devereaux, claim £8 7s, costs £1 13s 6d. 1 J. G. Macke-retli v. G. Muhu, claim £1 Is, costs £2 13s. I JUDGMENT DEBTORS. I Orders were made for payment 1 forthwith or by monthly instalments I in the undermentioned cases:— E. Allmand v. L. G. Simpson, £8 ss, in default 7 days. Jesiah Harvey v. Tuiti Makitonore £B6 14s 4d, costs £2 2s, in delimit 28 days. Wellington Meat Exchange v. A. Robinson £lO 10s Bd, costs £1 Is, in default 14 days.

WANDERING STOCK. The following persons were before the court for having permitted stock to wander on the Shannon roads:— Robert Buckman, charged that on Ist May he allowed two cows- to wandear at Shannon.—Fined £1 and costs ■7s. Charles W.. Hansmun, charged that he allowed one cow to wander in Graham Street, Shannon. —Fined 10s, costs 7s. Harry Murdoch, charged that on 27th April he allowed one heifer to wander along Nathan Terraco.—Fined £1 and casts 7s. Richard Pratt, charged that on Ist May he allowed one calf to wander in the Borough.—Fined 10s and costs 7s. Sue Young, a Chinese, charged that on 14th February lie did allow one horse to wander in .Sheehan Street, and also allowed hie horse to wander on March Ist.—Defendant appeared and stated the horse had broken Che fence and so got out.—Fined 5s iii the test case and 10s for the second, costs 14s, ■Tas. Kiiminster, charged that on :14th February he allowed 9 cows to wan-' der in the Borough of’ Shannon.— Fined £2 and costs 7s. Albert Grutnwald, charged that oh 30th April he allowed one horse to wander in Graham Street.—Fined £1 and costs 7s. 11. Payne, charged that on stli May he permitted three draught horses to wander. —-Fined 10s and costs 7s. Ronald Law, charged tha, on Bth April at Shannon he allowed one cow to wander. —Being a. first offender he was fined 5s and costs 7s. Roland Hayes, charged that on 10th March he allowed one cow to wander in Grev Street.—Fined • 10s and costs 7s. • POSSESSION OF PREMISES. Mrs J. McMillan v. E. D. Bell, claim for payment of rent and possession of shop and premises at Koputaroa. —This case was commenced at the April session of the Court, when Mr Adams appeared for plaintiff and Mr Free for defendant. Mr Adams said one. month’s notice of the termination of the tenancy hud been given on March Ist and payment of £24 in rent was asked for. Posssession iiiad not been given but the rent had been paid into Court that day. Mr Free claimed that the premises, to /which residential quarters were attached and' were'-occupied -by defendant, came within the provisions of fh-e War Legislation of 1916 and its subsequent amendments, under which possession could only toe given if the owner required the premises for his own use, had sold them t.o a person wishing to occupy them or that the premises were toeing damaged toy the occupier.

Counsel quoted authorities and lengthy argument took place as to whether the occupation of living ro'oms attached to a shop constituted the whole premises a dwelling. The Magistrate reserved judgment on the point. When the case was mentioned yesterday, the Magistrate said lie found that the premises eome under the pro visions of Hie War Legislation. Mr Adams asked that an order for possession in a. month, as he understood that defendant had assigned hits estate and there was no security for payment, of the rent. Mr Free assurd the Court that the rent would he paid. Defendant desired a little time to obtain other premises in. which to carry on business 'in Koputaroa. lie was quite prepared to give an undertaking to vacate the building in two months. The Magistrate indicated his intention of malting an order. Mr Free questioned the power to 1c this seeing that the rent was paid, and that- the Bench had decided that the premises came under’ the War Regulations. If an order was made Would -His Worship fix the security for an . appeal? The Magistrate: T will take the risk of that seeing that the estate is assigned and the plaintiff has no secim jfy for the rent. An order was made for possession within one month. Mr Free asked for security to he fixed for appeal. The Magistrate said he would fix the amount at £3O.