Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7168x9216 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

DANDENONG COURT
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3.
DEBT CASES.
Before Mr. Down, P.M., McLennan,
Kerr, Abbott, Singleton, and Mrs.
Gadle, J's.P.
Dandenong Motor Park Pty. Ltd. v.
Haig’s Hotel Pty. Ltd., work and labor
done, £2/10/. Order for amount with
15/6 costs.
.. J; M : . Hunter v. e T.‘ F : Howse, for
money, due. ,on cheque, £l5/2/6. —
Order for amount with 26/ costs.
Dandenong Motor Park Pty. Ltd: v.
M. Cunningham, for .work and labor
done, £B/0/6.—Order for amount with
20/ costs. ■
A. G. McDonald v r N. Jones and J.
S. Howse, claim for £l9/9/2, goods
sold and delivered.—Order for amount
with 28/6 costs.
Roulston and Roulstdn v. R, A.
Macpherson, for work and labor done
and for material supplied, £6. —Order
for amount .20/ costs .
Harry Taylor v.H. Ewbank, for
work and labor done, £i/9/, Order
for amount -w,itli 15/ ; costs..... :, - t ., ;
....
James Pickett- sued for the eject
ment of Janfies., Parsons, whom he
claimed , had failed -to pay due rental
of premises occupied by him, and the
Bench made order for his ejectment
within 30 clear days from: date of ap
plication. ,
DISCHARGED.
First-constable Edward Stanfield
proceeded. aganst Georg© Hogan and
Sydney Kelly, each of whom had been
locked up since Saturday, when they
had been arrested in Lonsdale street,
and charged with drunkenness. Both
were discharged, and each promised
not to offend again readily.
SHOW CAUSE.;
Mr. Harrison called upon J. P.
Walton to.show cause why an order
should not be made against him for
commitment, fbr failing to pay an
order mac(e n ßgainst him on 16th June,
1930,'Tdt lB/ costs. Com
plainant claimed'he had the means
and ability to . pay,, but had not done
so, and defendant was closely and
prudently examined by Mr. Barlow.
An order was made for £B/18/, with
£2/8/ costsy to be paid at the rate
of 15/ per week. 1
Constable M. - Mclntyre proceeded
against Henry McCormack, who was
called upon to show cause why a war
rant of commitment should not issue
against him’for the non-payment of a
fine of £6 previously imposed by the
Court, at Dandenong, also in respect
to a fine of, £5,-.also imposed, making.
£ll in all.' Defendant appealed and
explained he had since been out of
work, hut was now in employment. He
expressed a willingness to try and pay
at the rate of £.l per week. Both
cases were adjourned for 12 weeks to
enable a compliance.
TEST CASE.: ; . v
In the test case, heard at the, Dan
denong Court,'on October 20, when the
President, r Councillors and Ratepayers
proceeded against Mrs. E. Merrett
for concrete and paving of footpath—
£ 13/13/8, being, interest charge, added
—the ...Bench of , Messrs.
Down,. P.M,, } Abbott.and .Kerr,- J’s.P.;
and', as counsel.for the-plaintiffs, .Mr.
Macpherson, solicitor, appeared and
Mr. Prank Field, solicitor, represented
defendant, wAefi the defence was that
the footpath ■ had previously been
done, and that the Council was not’
entitled for this later and quite un
necessary work; Shire officers and
several witnesses for the defence gave
evidence, and. when the case closed
Mr. Down. P.M., thanked counsel for
their interest, and said judgment
would be given after 14 days. The
claim was made in respect to the con
creting of a footpath, in Pickett
street, hear defendant’s property.
Mr. Down made it clear, on Monday,
November 3, the Court was still de
sirous of. having , certain knowledge
presented concerning the footpath
construction years ago, and. other
points. Mr. and Mr.
Field expressed ; V willingness to sup
ply ihformiation, as far as was pos
sible, to each. Mr. Kerr, J.P., rea
lising there was -a little hesitancy to
grasp just the points that required
elucidation, cleared the way. It would
be impossible to consider that at
brief notice, and to present them to
the ; Court to-day, said Mr. Macpherson,
who asked that time be granted, and
Mr. Down made the hour as nine
o’clock on November 17. Both soli
citors expressed their thanks, since
the matter is at present sub judice,
anything that passed on Monday, be
yond the general fact stated, is not
recorded here.
$