MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 248, 18 September 1929, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CIVIL BUSINESS. Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., presided ove, yesterday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court, when civil business was transacted. Judgment for plaintiir by default was given in the following cases: —I Wilson (Mr Cooper) y. A. Duncan £l4 3s 6d, costs £2 18s; Dunvard and Davidson, Ltd. (Mr Laurenson) v. i. S. Nearne, £5 16s, costs £1 12s 6d; G. J Kells (Mr Ongley) v. N. L, Batt, £lO Is. costs £2 16s; H. L. Young, Ltd. (Mr Grant) v. E. Taylor, £l6 10s, costs £2 18s;. W. Atkins (Mr Grant) v. 1. Raymond,. £l3 8s 7d, costs £2 14s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

R. Miles was ordered to pay A. J. Vidal and Sons (Mr Grant) the sum of £4 4s 6d, in defauß seven days imprisonment. ”, . •G. B. Randall was ordered to pay Hallenstein Bros. (Mr Grant) the sum of £4 17s, in default seven days imprisonment. PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED. Reserved judgment was given in the case wherein T. J. Rodgers, land and estate agent, proceeded against W I. Shaw, mercer, also of Palmerston North claiming £ll for rent of a shop. In non-suiting plaintiff, the Magistrate, stated that plaintiff should have, prior to coming to court, obtained a decree of specific performance in the Supreme Court—the lower court not having the jurisdiction to grant it. The rent, added the Magistrate, had admittedly been paid up to the time the defendant had given up possession, while it had likewise been admitted that defendant had given notice prior to going out. There was, the re tore, no question of a clause for use and occupation or for a month s notice under the Act. The claim was tor rent due under an agreement to take a lease for five years, but there was not sufficient evidence "to determine whether specific performance could no enforced.- Costs were allowed defendant to the amount of £4 Is 2d. At the original hearing Mr Lauronsoti appeared for plaintiff and Mr Ongley for defendant. CLAIM FAILS.

Reserved judgment was given in the case wherein W. F. Shaw, of Palmerston North, mercer, proceeded against The Northern Assurance Coy., Ltd., claiming £74 10s 3d under a cover against fire alleged to have been accepted by the defendant company. In giving judgment, in favour of tho defendant company, the Magistrate commented that he was not satisfied that the plaintiff had disclosed his association with the State Fire Insurance Office, and he held that that companyis refusal to transfer the policy and the cancellation of plaintiff s Mnsterton policy following his removal to Palmerston North, . was a non-ac-ceptance of the risk within the meaning of question 18 on the back of the policy. Even had tho plaintiff disclosed that the policy had been declined bv another company, he was bound £>y the answers given in tho proposal signed by him and could not rely upon any default on the part of tho company’s agent. The particulars in. tne proposal were the basis of the insurance* added the Magistrate and plaintiff’s failure to disclose in the proposal hi 6 transactions with the State Fire Office in his (the Magistrate’s) opinion invalidated the policy. Judgment was accordingly given, for .defendant company with costs amounting to £6 12s 2d. At the original hearing Mr Ongley appeared for plaintiff and Mr Cooper for'the defendant "company.