MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 61, 4 December 1907, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

AN OPUNAKE CASE. The only defended action heard before ilr. 11. S. Fitzhorbert, S.M., at New Plymouth yesterday was that of A. (J'Brieu v. C. A. Trotter, an Opunake ca.se, in which the claim was for £1 !)s !)d, being £3 2s (id for plana and specifications, and Sundry items. Mr. ti. (Irey appeared for the plaintilT, and Mr. F. R. Wilson for the defence. The plaintiff said that in July, 11)02, he received instructions from Trotter to make alterations to his shop, occupied by Bang, Chong, and Co. Tenders were called, and submitted to defendant, who decided not to accept any. He charged his commission at the rate of 2'/ 2 per cent, on £125. A had regularly sent the accounts in, and up to six months ago the claim had not DeWi disputed. In September, 1902, the defendant went Home to England to exploit a patent, md asked that the account should stand over till his return. Trotter first disputed the account about six months ago, and offered to compromise for £11) !)s. Plaintiff refused.

To Mr. Wilson: Plaintiff left Opunake in this year. Defendant kept putting him off. He did not know he was bound to sue in Opunake. (Ledger produced.) Trotter paid him a prior account before leaving for England. This work was to stand over until he came back from England, hence the non-pay-ment of it. Trotter would be billed for the amount in 1903. He absolutely denied having been instructed by Bang Chong. Bang ('hong and his manager had left the colony. The defendant's evidence, which had been taken at Opunake, denied liability in respect of the alterations to the shop, and stated that Bang Chong and Co. had given the instructions It had been agreed that if Bang, Chong and Co. would make certain alterations, they could obtain a lease of the premises. He admitted owing £lB f)s for other work.

The Stipendiary Magistrate said he could well understand the delay in suing, for that was usual enough. It was a very unusual thing for a tenant to pay for alterations made to a freehold. Two rather strong bits of evidence in support of the plaintiff were that the tenders were advertised for alterations to a shop for Mr. Trotter, and doubtless Mr. Trotter saw the notice, and made no protest; and that in October of this year the defendant asked for the items of the account. If he had not owed the money, he would not have done that. Under all the circumstances, he thought the plaintill' was, entitled to judgment, which would be entered accordingly for the amount claimed, less IDs Shi paid in, and costs amounting to £1 12s .JUDGMENT SUMMONS, in a judgment summons case, Datson v. Van Dclden, claim £5 18s Ud, the judgment debtor was cross-examined by Mr. C. 11. Weston as to his means. lie said he was a hairdresser, but since the debt had been contracted he had not made even enough money to pay his rent. In fact he had often had to borrow from friends to meet his rent and lodging charges, ilis takings had been from 7s to 10s a day, and the prolit was a shilling a day, or a little over. He owed only £4 or so for rent, and perhaps £2 for board, lie had a small income from commission business sometimes, but, generally speaking, that business cost him money. The new Gaming Act would practically prevent his carrying on that business. No order made. BY DEFAULT. Judgment by default was given in the following cases:—White and Sons (Mr. F. ;■;. \iiison) v. A. Styles, claim .€1 8s od, and costs 7s; Southam Bros, v. A, Loveridgo, claim £1 15s and costs.