MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1919, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDAY'S SITTINGS. (Before Mr W. R. McKean, S.M.) In the Magistrate's Court at New Plymouth yesterday judgment was given by default for the State Advances Department against W. A. Scott, for the sum of £0 lis (costs 8s). HOSPITAL CHARGES. The Taranaki Hospital and Charitable Aid Board (Mr Ronald H. Quilliam) sued Thomas Northcott for the sum of £3O ss, being maintenance due in respect of three of his children who received medical treatment in the New Plymouth Hospital. Evidence was given by the secretary of the Hospital Board (Mr E.Holden) as to the the defendant's children to the hospital, and the scale of fees charged by the Board. He stated that the matter had arisen during the epidemic of last year, and that the children of defendant had been brought into the main hospital at New Plymouth. Defendant admitted the claim against him, but objected that the children were taken away to the hospital without his authority. He had had a bad time, at the epidemic. A household of fifteen of them had all been ill, and he had lost his wife and two children.! He thought the Board were experimenting on him in the endeavor to recover fees.

Mr Quilliam pointed out that all sorts of unusual things were done during the course of handling cases at the time of the epidemic. ' Defendant had been sent accounts for the amount now claimed, and also letters from the Board's secretary and their solicitors, and to none of these had The Board believed he was in a position to be able to pay the fees. If that was not so |then defendant had the course open to him of explaining his position to the Board, But the Board had a duty to perform to the ratepayers whom they represented

In giving judgment for the Board the Magistrate said if defendant was unable to pay, or could not pay the whole amount at once, he should get into communication with the Board at once. Costs amounting to £3 lis were allowed against defendant.

(POSSESSION OP A DWELLING.

An action for the recovery "of possession of a dwelling house and £2l 15s arrears of rent, was brought by Messrs H. Jackson and V. Elliot (Mr D. Hutchen) against Hickman F. Russell (Mr H. R. Billing). Evidence was given by Roy GoldsWorthy, law clerk, as to having posted, by registered letter, on June 13th, a no-, tice to defendant, trminating his tenancy of the house in question by one month's notice to vacate the same'.

Frederick H. Jackson, ironmonger, New Plymouth, stated that defendant owed £2l 15a for pent up to July 29The rent amounted to about 30s per week. On his instructions notice terminating defendant's tenancy of the place was issued as on June 14. The property had been sold to Mr Lewis Jackson, who required it for his own purposes as a residence, and a conveyance to him had been effected. Witness stated that during the past two years he had had difficulty in collecting the rent from defendant, and proceedings against him had to be taken. To' Mr. Billing: There was no written agreement for sale and purchase. The rent had been made payable at fourweekly periods. When the rent got behind the matter was put in witness' solicitor's hands, who had thereafter collected the amounts. Witness did not know the exact amount owing. The pfiirchaser—Lewis Jackson—had paid only a part of the purchase money. The balance was to be paid when the sale of the purchaser's house was completed and he got possession of the new property he had bought, which was the house occupied by defendant. Mr Billing moved for a non-suit, under the War Regulations Act, on the ground that there was no proper proof that the purchaser required the house for his own possession. There was only the statement by the vendor to that effect; also that there was no proof that the sale had to be complete by transfer within one month, and witness had stated that the stale was to be completed when the purchaser got possession of the house. Mr Billing further urged that if the conveyance was accepted as a transfer, then the person who should have sued as plaintiff was tho purchaser—Lewis JacksoM. There was also the further point that there was no proper proof that the notice terminating the tenancy had been received by defendant on June 14th, and if received after that date it did not of course give the required amount of notice-

Mr Hntchen contended that it was reasonable to assume that the registered letter posted on June 13th wis delivered to defendant the next day. There was at least one delivery each day, and he did not think it necessary that evidence should be called to prove that. In regard to the legal ownership of the property he was prepared to have Mr Letos Jackson joined as a plaintiff and had his authority for that. Mr Billing objected to Mr L. Jackson being joined in the cane at that stage Th ? Magistrate upheld Mr Billing on the non-suit points in the matter of the< applmation for an order for possession, Mr Billing consenting to judgment for the amount of the rent.