“STORM IN A TEACUP.”

Taranaki Daily News, 28 July 1922, Page 4

“STORM IN A TEACUP.”

ACTION AGAINST A CLAIRVOYANT. DISPUTE OVER RENTED ROOMS. “A storm in a teacup!” Such was the comment of Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court at New Plymouth, yesterday afternoon, after over an hour and a half had been spent in hearing the claim of Mary Elizabeth Riddle for the sum of £3 10s from Madame Bertha Sonia, a clairvoyant, who lodged a counter-claim for £1 14s Bd. Mrs, Riddle’s claim was made up from rent due, a gas bill which she had paid on behalf of Madame Sonia, and 10s for electric lighting. From her evidence, it appeared that defendant had rented two of her rooms at £1 per week, payable in advance. Madame Sonia was also to pay one shilling per week for lighting and a proportion of the gas bill., Things had apparently gone smoothly enough from Mrs. Riddle’s point of view, until Madame had departed to attend the show at Hamilton. In this connection it was alleged that the defendant had requested that her rooms be kept for her and that she had left certain articles of clothing, etc., behind her. On Madame’s return, after a week at Hamilton, she had stayed only a couple'of days or so, and it was for these days and the week she was away that the rent was claimed. On the subject of gas, it was stated Madame Sonia had paid the b’dla for the first and third months of her stay in New Plymouth, but had defaulted *>n the intervening month. Likewise it was claimed she had not paid the shilling per week for electric light. Cross-examination being over, Madame Sonia entered the box and denied outright that she had requested that the rooms be kept for her while she was at Hamilto i or that she had left any articles there. Neither had she asked for a key to take with her. “What did I want with a key ?” she asked the cross-examining counsel. Coming to the gas question, she stated that she had gone to the Gas Company’s office to pay the bill, but Mrs. Riddle had forestalled her “to get th® discount, which she claimed was hers.” As Mrs. Riddle had paid it, “she wasn’t going to,” but her counsel interrupted that they would come to an agreement on that point. In the matter of electric lights, these would seem to have been non est, as Madame stated that she had had to use candles, which she herself had bought. Proceeding to the counter-claim, Madame Sonia stated that when she was leaving Mrs. Riddle had detained her luggage without stating any reason, and thus had caused her to miss her train, necessitating a further night’s stay in New Plymouth. The aid of Sergeant Martin had been invoked, and the luggage was forthcoming later in the day. Her counter-claim was made up of hotel expenses, motor-car hire, storage of the luggage for a night, and the fee of a solicitor whose advice she had taken when the luggage was held up. Corroborative evidence was given by Sergeant Martin as .tp accompanying the defendant to Mrs. Riddle’s house. He had told plaintiff that she had no right to detain the baggage. The Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for £2, with costs £1 16s, and for defendant for £l, and costs 10s, on the coun-ter-claim.