MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 July 1921, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING. CIVIL BUSINESS. The usual weekly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held at New Plymouth yesterday, Mr. C. R. Orr Walker S.M., presiding. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given as follows: —Standish and Anderson v. James Cross, £8 2s 3d, costs £1 10s 6d; S. A. Dailey v. Waho Komene, £l6 6s Bd, costs £-4 2s 6d; J. H. Cock and Co., Ltd., v. Hilton G. Olliver, £122 8s 3d. costs £6 14s; R. C. Hughes v. A. J. Cross, £ll 10s Bd, costs £1 18s 6d; Bellringer Bros., Ltd., v. S. T. Joll, 18s, costs 9s; Fitzherbert and Fitzherbert v. Wiki Pepe, £55 ss, costs £5 10s 6d; Whites’, Ltd., v. Arthur Cooper, £3 14s Bd, costs £1 3s 6d. At the suit of L. T. Creswell, Walter Kendall was ordered to pay the sum of £4 13s, in weekly instalments of 10s, in default 4 days’ imprisonment. Bruce Joll was ordered to pay F. G. Butler £ll 14s 5d on or before August 22, in default ten days’ imprisonment. POSSESSION OF TENEMENT. The Public Trustee, as executor of the’ estate of William Hancock, deceased,. sought to recover possession of a. tene- i ment from Ernest Mailman. For plain- 1 tiff, Mr. Billing said notice to quit had been given on May 5. There had been a ! considerable amount of rent owing, but £3l 15s had since been paid into Court. Counsel said they also had another ’ ground of action, namely, that the ■ house was in a bad state of repair, and; needed pulling down. It was not alleged I that the disrepair was due to any fault: of defendant’s. Defendant said he was anxious to get: out of the house, as it was not u good place to live in. but ho could not find another residence. His Worship informed counsel that the ■ question nf whether the house was in a; bad state o-f repair could hardly be made j the basis of plaintiff’s claim for pos-: session, as the more they.proved the easel the more desirable it would seem for defendant, to get out of his own accord if I ■possible. After further consideration His Honor said he would not make an order. ALLEGED BREACH OF AGREEMENT. A claim of £36 for damages was made ' by Edward McGinty against F W. Pid- ! geon and Co. (Christchurch). The facts i of the case, as put for plaintiff by Mr.' C. H. Croker, were that McGinty leased j a shop in §t. Aubyn Street, New Ply- ! mouth, to defendants at £2 per week i cor twelve months from June, 1920, un-1 der an agreement in writing, but de- 1 fendants in February gave up posses- 1 sion after a few days’ notice and retvs- ■ ed _to pay any more rent. Plaint iff ! claimed for the loss caused by this action and said he had not been able to ; lease . the shop since. Mr. H. R. Billing ■appeared, for de- [ fondants, for whom part evidence was taken in Christchurch. In a statement [ before the Magistrate at Christchurch ’ Wm. Horton, manager for the defendants, said he always understood they , were at liberty to give or be compelled to receive a month’s notice to quit. It was because of the insecurity of their tenure that they had taken another shop. An offer was made to McGinty, who was to confirm by letter, but his reply had never been received. A good deal of evidence as to negotiations between the parties was given by plaintiff E. McGinty, and his wife, Helen McGinty. They said that the letter confirming the arrangement was posted, and produced a copy. Examined by Mr. Billing as to the efforts made to’let the shop, plaintiff eaid he had put the matter in the hands of two different agents and the property had been advertised. Particulars of the defendant's interest in the transactions was given by F. H. Broadbent, manager at Wanganui. The New Plymouth agent of the com pany, William G. Holder, said his instructions from the head office were to take a suitable place in the main street if any became available. He found a shop and subsequently took it over after advice from 'Christchurch. The instructions were to paj’ McGinty up to the date of vacating his shop. Witness was advised by the letter from the head office that he need not worry about the balance of the term of McGinty’s lease, as McGinty had not promised a definite lease. His Worship held that there was a lease for twelve months, but the matter of damages was deferred pending counsel’s address being heard at next i sitting. His Worship intimated that I judgment would not be given for the ! full amount of rent for the remainder of the lease as might have been thought. It would be for the difference between what plaintiff could have got and the amount at which he had let to defendants. Ppssibly the parties would reach an agreement on this question before next Court day.