MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 August 1920, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDAY'S SITTING. A sitting of the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court was held yesterday, Mr. T. A.'B. Bailey presiding. POSSESSION OF TENEMENTS. J. IT. Tiplady (Mr. Quilliam) sought an order for possession Against V.. E. Cattley (Mr. Bennett), occupier of a dwelling bought by plaintiff. The case had previously been before the' Court and the principal facts were that Cattley had a wife anil family of six and that, hogie will) a wife and daughter desired possession because he had, received notice from his landlord to quit. His Worship declined to make an order and also announced that the same would be followed in the case of Logie v. Tipiady, which was adjourned from last Court day to await the outcome of the present case. VALUE OF ORNAMENTAL TREES. A claim for £25 was preferred by C. F. Foote (exetor in the estate of the late Mrs. Bramley) against G. Hadler. The statement set out that defendant wrongfully dug up and removed nine pohutuka#a trees growing on a section situated in the Fitzroy district and which he occupied as a tenant of the plaintiff. 'The plaintiff therefore claimed the sum of. £9 as the \value of the trees and £lO as damages. Mr. R. C. Hughes appeared for tne plaintiff and Mr. R. H. Quilliam for the defendant. Mr. Hughes stated that the property had been sold to a Mr. Hammond who made a complaint shortly afterwards that the trees on the section had been removed. Hadler did not deny removing them but insisted that they were of little or no value. Hadler had made a present of them to the East End Reserve. He gave as his reason for removing them that Foote had given permission to him to remove rubbish and the trees were of no value. Evidence was given by plaintiff, and by H. C. Hammond, and William Hartnet. Mr. Quilliam said apparently there had been an honest misunderstandrng. Hadler had made some arrangements for the grazing rights of some sections; they were somewhat overgrown and he arranged to clean up the property and cut down the trees. This was done, and he next took in hand the back part (the section in question) after seeing Hadler. He thought he had permission to clear weeds, shrubs and growth, etc. As the trees were in a very bad condition he was about to cut them down when he heard of some planting being undertaken at the East End and he told the committee they could have the trees for removal.

Defendant and R. Bennoch gave particulars concerning the removal of the trees. The latter said four of them had died.

His Worship said he could not see how the permission to clear up the section could extend to taking down trees which were pretty well grown. However they did not have any great value on account of being' choked up by the growth 0:1 the section. He assessed the value at £5 and gave judgment accordingly, with costs.

MISCELLANEOUS. ' - Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the case of Burgess, Eraser and Co. (Mr. Quilliam) v. Albert May, claim £2O las lid, costs £2 17s. In the adjourned case of Morrison v. Suer, Mr. Billing, for defendant, moved for a non-suit on the ground that the wrong person had been sued, the defendant being only agent for the vendor. His Worship upheld the contention; defendant was allowed solicitor's fee; £1 Is. * Edwin Whittle proceeded against A. R. McNeil and Co., Auckland, for possession of goods detained by the defendant from lflth September, 1919, and which had not been delivered in spite of frequent demands. In the event of possession not being obtainable plaintiff claimed £42 las and £2O damages for their detention. The .plaintiff also claimed £IOO damages sustained by reason of defendant, not delivering goods bargained and sold ,by defendant to plaintiff about 2nd April, 1917. Judgment was given for £57 in the first, case, and £9O in the second claim, and costs for the two claims totalled £9 16s '6d. f ' Decision was res'ervetf'iii the ease of Harte v. Smith and others, in which legal argument*was concluded.