[Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] CIVIL CASES. Bank of Australasia v James Daly. This was a suit at the instance of the bank against one of throe endorsors of a promissory note made by Messrs Bland ancl/.Hu'nipherys to the bank. Two of the endorsers of the note had already confessed judgment, and Mr Wilding for the plaintiffs claimed professional _ fee against defendant, judgment being given for p!aintiffs by default. In the following cases judgment went for plaintiffs by default:—J. Orr and Co. v .James Taylor, £1016s 7d ;J. M. Tweed v James Taylor, £2 11s; D. McFarlane v James Taylor, £2 11s ; A. Bray v Thomas Smith, £5 17s fid ; A. Crawford v Thomas Smith, £3 17s; Mrs Swan vJ. Bamber, £7. Mr Cuthbertson obtained leave to issue a judgment summons in the case of Moore v Jephson. A. Orr v T. Perks, £14 3s 2d, for drapery goods supplied. Mr Crisp appeared for defendant. Several items in die account rendered by plaintiff were disputed, and the case was adjourned for a short time to, admit of the.salesman being produced who supplied the goods. At a later stage the case was adjourned until next Court day to allow of the parties making an amicable settlement. Eliasson v Hampton, claim £23, balance of wages owing for work done —thirteen weeks, less two and a half days, at £2 2s a w^ek, and overtime at Is per hour. There was also a claim for alleged damage by th« detention of pontiff's tools by defendant. Plaintiff had obtained a quantity of furniture from defendant, and had given in security for it the tools in question. Defendant said plaintiff worked very irregularly, not coming to work in the morning at the usual hour for commencing, and as the season was June, it was impossible to work up to five o'clock because of.'the-light. Any overtime worked in the evening was simply to make up for lost time. Plaintiff did not work out the furniture account, and defendant befcre plaintiff left showed him that he was still in defendant's debt. Was quite willing to have given up the tools if the furniture account had been provided for. The Bench failed to see that the plaintiff had any cause of action. The Court then rose.
Permanent link to this item
MAGISTERIAL., Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2503, 28 August 1890
MAGISTERIAL. Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2503, 28 August 1890
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.