MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 November 1920, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CIVIL SITTING. The usual silling of the Magistrate's Court, New Plymouth, was held yesterday, before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M. CLAIM FOR POSSESSION. The adjourned case of J. S. Fox v. Frank Ansley, being claim for possession, was again called on. Mr. Bennett, for plaintiff, said that the two houses which were mentioned last Court day were available to Ansley, but he refused to take either, as he said one had no water supply and the other was too far away.

For the defendant, Mr. Quilliam said lie relied chiefly on the fact that he was entitled to a non-suit because the legislation providing that possession could be obtained for an employee had been repealed. The merits of the case also entitled Ansley to consideration Mr. Bennett said that the owner having secured alternative accommodation for Ansley, some consideration was due to him. It seemed ridiculous that a tenant should be able to Hon! his landlord when other accommodation was provided.

His Worship upheld the point raised by Mr. Quilliam, and planitiff was nonsuited.

UNDEFENDED CASES.

Judgment was given for plaintiff in the following undefended eases: E. .1. (Mr. Bennett) v. VVa!;o Ivomene £9, costs £2 ss; A. Rundle (Mr. H. R. Billing) v. T. Willing and estate of Mrs. P. Willing, £29 0s 7(1, costs £3 2s; L. S. Hart (Mr. Billing) v Waho, £2 7s (id, costs £2 Ss; Smart Bros. (Mr. Wilson) v. British Petroleum Company, Ltd., £OB 17s 7d, costs £4 14s. In the judgment summons ease, Sneliing and Andrews (Mr. Anderson) v. Ani Matakaka, claim for £lO 2s, debtor was ordered to pay the amount, in default 10 days' imprisonment

PROHIBITfON ORDER. A prohibition order was made against Joseph Moody, on the application of his wife. The order was made in respect of the Taranaki, Stratford, Egmont and Waitomo districts. NEW HEARING REFUSED. The adjourned application of the British Petroleum Company for a fresh hearing of the case in which judgment was given against them at the suit of L. W. Courtenay for £lO4 3s 4d was refused. On the day set down for hearing, an application by the company was before the court for permission to take evidence. This was opposed by counsel for claimant (Mr. R 11. Quill'iam) on the ground that the company wa> causing undue delay, and Hi, Worship on this occasion gave judgment for the amount claimed. Yesterday costs, £2 2s, were allowed respondent. In the caM> of T. A. Dyer (Mr. Quilliam) v. the British Petroleum Company, a claim of £S(I for wages, judgment was given for the amount claimed, and costs.