Magistrate's Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 793, 8 April 1905, Page 2

Magistrate's Court.

FRIDAY, APRIL 7. (Before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M.) Montclioro v. Carthew.'— Judgment was given in tho case of J. C. Mon- n tefiore v. E. J, Carthew, which had d been adjourned from the last Court day »o enable tho S.M. to inspect i'-I tho section in Powderham Street, h which formed the subject of the case. |' ! 'After adjustments on both sides had 8 been mado the sum in dispute was re- v jduced to £l2 10s. The S.M. in his 1 'judgment said that the question was .1 I ne of fact in connection with which I there was a direct conflict of ovi- c dence. To arrivo at a conclusion an estimate had to bo made of the prob- ' abilities to ho derived from the cir-U cumstances. The evidence on either si'Jn was not satisfactory, but tho ' onus was on the plaintiff. The Mag- J ! isti'dta said that ho must hold that ! he claim had not been established. 1 Plaintiff was non-suited on thl i 1 claim for £l2 10s, and nn order was 1 mado disallowing £1 on the counter' i claim for money lent, and also costs , on the claim and the countetclaim. i Mr C. H. Weston appeared oil behalf ; of the plaintiff, and Mr Malone (or i tho defendant. I Nathan v. Garry.—Judgment by de- ' fault was onterwl in the case of L. . 1). Nathan and Co. v. W. .1. Garry, < ! claim £26 13s, with £2 11 s coses, i'A confession was lodged by defend-|' [ ant, bul was not accepted. >! Henderson (Mr C. H. Weston) v. H. . F. Cnllaghan (Mr Quilllam).—Cla ni for £33 15s rent.: The,defendant admitted the agreement under which the plaintiff sued, and also that the rent , claimed had not been paid, 'the 1 plaintiff held an original lease of the property in question (rooms above the local branch of the Dresden Piano 3 Company) from A. .Shuttleworth.and, " a sub-lease was required to have the ■ 1 latter's consent. The defendant sign- I " je;l the agreement on which tho present action was based conditionally upon Shuttleworth's consent being: - obtained, but as this had not btvn s secured by plaintiff, who had ire- ; , quently promised to see it attended t to, defendant refused to take posses- - sion, as tho tenancy was insecure. Jle had offered without prejudice to pay e half of the rent from the time the j agreement was made, providing a s proper lease was executed. Defendant, in his evidence, said he und.'rs stood that the document signed wat ' not binding, but simply u. statement of tho terms, subject to tho owner's consent to a sub-lease. 0 Mr Weston stated that the plaintilf r was at present in Wellington, and n nt-L-.w! 1 .tnvn'ta hnve his evidence tak-

asked leavo 'to have his evidence taken on affidavit there. The case was adjourned to April 28, in order that plaintiff's solicitjr might communicate with his principal. Costa of the adjournment were I allowed to 'the defendant.