RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2177, 17 March 1891, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temetka—Monbay, March 16, 1891

[Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.]

aryrL cases. W. McLeod v. Con. Diggaa—Claim £3 18a. Judgment summons. Amount to be paid forthwith or in default three days’ imprisonment. A. R. Allan v. R. Roberts —Claim £5 19s 4d. Mr Hay for plaintiff. Defendant admitted the claim, but said that he was unable to pay, haying had to contend with a great deal of sickness. He had buried two children within five weeks. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Francis Franks v. H. H. Pitman- — Claim £2 12s. Mr Salmond for defendant. This was a claim for damages for illegal detention of furniture. Plaintiff stated that in October 1889 he was in possession of a cottage at 2s 6d per week. He took it from Mr Gray, defendant’s agent. When he had been in possession of the premises a week the agency was transferred to Mr Eilbrow. Plaintiff purchased from a previous tenant a sofa. Mr Pilbrow, defendant’s agent, tried to repudiate the tenancy, and locked up the premises. It had remained locked up for 12 months. The premises were locked in the early part of November. Applied to Mr balmond, who was defendant’s solicitor, who said Mr Pilbrow would give the sofa up. Had sent an order for the sofa (copy produced). Had also written to Mr Pitman about it. Had been put to expense m obtaining another. The sofa was worth about 30s. Required the sofa back, and thought he was entitled to some compensation for hie

trouble. By Mr Salmond; Bought the Bof a from a man named E. Aitken. He was the last tenant of the house. Took possession, he believed, on October 20th. Was sure the sofa was worth more than ss. Was sure it

was worth a pound. On the 18th November went to Mr Halmond’a office and gave up the key- The house had been nailed up. Had not received notice to quit. Had been annoyed every way. Had not asked Mr Pilbrow personally for the sofa. Had sent an expressman to him for it. Mr Pilbrow knew of the sofa being there.

Mr Pitman knew ef it, and was told a sbillling a week would be charged if it was not returned. Had allowed twelve months to elapse before a bill was made. Had offered to buy the property. It was not true that ha only held the place until an offer to buy it had been accepted or rejected.

Had rented it £or 2a 6d a week for the use of the grass and the fruit in the garden. By His Worship: Had no other evidence than the receipt produced to show that he had bought the sofa unless he called a witness from Ashburton. (The receipt showed payment of £2O, for horse, saddle, bridle, etc.) Geo, Davey, carrier, said that he had called by instructions for a sofa Had taken an order to Mr Pilbrow,

Edward Pilbrow, said that he took oyer the agency of Mr Pitman’s property from Mr Gray. Understood that Mr Franks had made an offer of £45 for the property, and was 8 tenant at 2s 6d a week until the offer was rejected. Franks gave up possession on the 18th November. Never heard from plaintiff about the ownership of the sofa except from Mr Gray, who told him that it must have belonged to a previous tenant, who had left it for arrears of rent. The first he heard about the sofa was when the carrier came for it. Heard nothing more for 12 months, when Mr Pitman wrote forwarding an account for the detention of a sofa, and stating that some person had called about it, and had been referred to plaintiff. By Plaintiff: Never knew and did not know now that the sofa belonged to plaintiff. By His Worship: Had received a letter from Mr Pitman saying that if the sofa was Mr Franks’ to give it up.

Some cross-questioning passed between the witness and defendant, but was stopped by His Worship, who said it appeared that there seemed to be some feeling between Mr Pitman’s agent and the plaintiff. Mr Pranks had not apparently taken the proper steps to prove his claim at the time, and it was probably his fault that he had not received it. It was a trivial case that should not have been brought into Court. He would make an order for delivery of the sofa but not for costs. The Court then rose;