R.M. COURT.-Yesterday.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 4277, 8 February 1884, Page 4

R.M. COURT.-Yesterday.

[Before 11. G. Soth Smith. Esq., B.MJ

Undefended Cases,

Judgment was given in the following cases for tlio plaintiffs, the defendants not appearing : —John Leek v. James Johnson ; L2B 7s lOd; Stodard G.M. Co. v. C. F, H. Ljoyd, L 2 6s Cd; Henry Neal v. Arthur Dowson, Ll4 3s Cd; 11. Hutchinson v. Thos. Hewlett, LI 12s. Judgment Summons Cases. Thomas Faulder v. Bernard McDonald ; claim, L 23 Os 2d.—The defendant did not appear, and an order was therefore made upon him for payment of LS 18s wjthin a month ; in default, five days' imprisonment. John Leek v t Wm, Moore claim, L 7 12s Cd.—The defendant was examined and lie was then ordered to pay LC 12s 6d, by monthly instalments of 10s; in default, 10 days' imprisonment. I Adjourned. IL Fountain v. G. Wheaton, £1 103 6d ; Charlos 0. Hart v. William Butler, £6 • W. Me Arthur & Co. v. J. A. Cooper' ±33 is 3d ; Union Sash & Door Company v S. A. Wood, £21 Gs Id; John Sperry v Henry Palmer, £19 Os lid; H. & J Brinstcd v. Michael Ryan, £3 17s 6d j John Leek v. C. W. S. Purdie, -£8 16s lid; S H Webb v. Webb, £6 15s (id. * Defended Cases. Daniel MoLellan v. Wm. Garrick ; claim, L 23 2s.—Mr Thorne for plaintiff, and Mr Tole for defendant.—The case was heard last Court day, and His Worship now gavo judgment for L2O, the balanco having been paid into Court. Lewis Mosks v. Geo. Cozens ; claim £4 10s on a bill of exchange,—Mr Theo. Cooper for the plaintiff, and Mr A. E. Whitaker for the defendant. When the bill of exchange was produced it was found to be insufficiently stamped, and a non. t suit was, therefore, accepted by the plantiff, costs 15s Cd. Kobt. Brxgham v. John Mullally; claim, Ll4 7s 7d, for supplies for greenstuff.—Mr Thoo. Cooper for plaintiff.—The defendant conducted his own case.—The supply of the greenstuff was proved, and I judgment was given for Ll3 13s lOd. 1 James Kelly v. Thomas Revill ; claim, LlO Ca 8d for castings supplied.—Mr B Cooper for plaintiff.—Evidence having been taken, judgment wag given for L 5 Ca 8d and costs.

' I David Lindsay v. Sydney TAiwirANc* j claim, LI lls.—Mr Jackson Palmer in peared for tlio plaintiff, and the defendant conducted his own case—Tho plaintiff's wife keeps a boarding luuse, and the claim was brought for board and lodging supplied Mrs Taiwhanga, as well an for a dress and a hat purchased for her. Sydney , objected to the charge for the hat, seeing that plaintiff retained possession of it, and also to the item for board, as he made it a condition of the contract that his I better half was not to bo allowed access to her weakness, tho bottle, which con- ! dition had not been observed, the result [ being Mrs Taiwhangn's incarceration in gaol.—Mrs Lindsay and Mr and Mrs Ttisvhanga having been heard on oath, judgment was given for £1 and costs, i W. J. Daiton v. E. L. Clarke; claim, I £10 ss, for preparing drawings and speciI menu of a patent movable roof.—Mr S. | Hesketh (instructed by Mr Dufaur) for the ! plaintiff, and Mr Theo. Cooper for the defendant.—After Mr Dalton's evidence had been partially heard, an arrangement was effected between tho parties, whereby judgment was entered up for.the plaintiff for £5 and costs.

Lawlor v. Courtney.—Claim, £10' wages.—Mr Theo. Cooper for the plaintiff, and Mr Cotter for the defendant.—The plaintiff is a tailor, and the defendant the purchaser of McKenna's tailoring business. It was alleged that at the time of McKonna's arrest Courtney, who seized upon the business by virtuo of a judgment summons, promised tc pay plaintiff and others their wages in consideration of their working for him, Tlio wages claimed included the first week of July, but an aflidavit by tho plaintiff was put in to shew that he had already acknowledged to having bsen paid for the of July.—Mr Cotter, in moving for a nonsuit, denounced tho plaintiff's cvidenco as a barefaced attempt to obtain a judgment in faco of a sworn aflidavit.—Mr Cooper condemned tlio conduct of defendant, and pointed out that an aflidavit might be made while the deponent was not cognisant of all the facts alleged in it.—His Worship held that the plaintiff must be found by his atlidavit and accordingly nonsuited them. Tho Court then adjourned.