AN AMUSING CASE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 29, 4 October 1913, Page 5

AN AMUSING CASE.

A GRANDFATHER’S CLAIM.

“MOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT.” In the Milton Court last week, before Mr J. R, Bartholomew, S.M., James Bennett (Lovells Flat) brought a claim for £‘2l 6s lOd against Thomas

Bennett Hamilton, science master at the Otago University.

The plaintiff, in reply to a question by the Magistrate, said he “could not afford a lawyer.” The defendant was represented by Mr F. B. Adams, of Dunedin.

The claim was for balance of account for goods supplied and services rendered, and the details were:— To use and occupation of a cosy corner in my orchard, and all necessary appliances to make a tent comfortable for you to spend your honeymoon in, when you got married, 10s; to use of my horse and trap to take your bride a drive‘tin pleaseur, same time, os; (to food for you both for four weeks, £8; to keeping your horse Scamp one year, £2 12s; to ' advertising him for sale, 2s 6d; to repairing fence broken down by him in getting into my wheat, add destroying two sacks, 6s 4d; to eating and otherwise destroying four bushels of seed wheat,’pickled ready for sowing—which killed him, 17s 6d ; to use of team to drag him off the field, ss; to burning and burying, according to the Act, 10s; to trespassing on my property by driving your family about my grounds in a motor car, 10s; to sticking us up and taking possession of our house, and occupying our front rooms and bedding all night—nine hours, from 9 till 6 in the morning, 18s; to use and occupation of my garden for tent, and things required to make tent suitable for you to do special business for the Government at extra fees during Christmas holidays, IGs; to board and lodging for self and family, with freedom of grass field for pleasure and games, in a very healthy locality, away from the noise,smoke, and stinks of Dunedin, for ■five weeks, £10; to stand for safety

and protect ion of motor car, sheltered from the weather by my shrubbery, 10s. £25 IGs 4d; less contra account, 10s 6d (including one cup of tea with.sake). Total, £j2l 6s 10s. Note: No lawyer’s fees if settled opt of coprt. , . ■

It was elicited that defendant,! who was plaintiff’s stojvgrandson, had purchased a motor car, to which machines plaintiff had -a- •. antipatjhy , and ccjuld not even bear to look at a picof one, much less come in Hostcontact with the genuine article. The defendant and his wife and family had been in the habit of visiting the plaintiff during- .the. Christmas..-holidays. There had been no previous understanding that defendant should pay for the items claimed.

Evidence was given by the defendant, who stated, inter alia, that hi? grandtather owed him'- a "considerable sum’df ngoney, aftd mffo;, that-he. offeree! mis grandfather £.>' last Cbristhif}r:holidays to assrH in paying the storekeeper, which he resented. Since witnbsli purchased the motor car the plaintiff had written him several disagreeable letters*.

I lie Magistrate, in giving judgment for defendant, said plaintiff had no ease, and the mat teg-should not..havo been brought into court. Two guineas costs were awarded against the plaintiff.