R.M. COURT.-This day.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 4290, 21 February 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.-This day.

(Boforo H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., R.M.)

In the following undefended cases, judgment was given for plaintiffs with costs _— James McElroy v. James Milne, L 5 15s, costs 16s ; James Close v. J. Gillander, L 7, costs 16s 6d, Mr Keetley for plaintiff; Dr. Dawson v. T. R. Turnbull, L 2 12s, costs-Ll 2s 6d ; Andrew Otto v. M. Beaton, L 4 14s 6d, costs 7s ; Francis Mander v. S. • Cundy, LIC 9s 9d, costs Ll 12s, Mr W. Thome for plaintiff; C. J. Reid v. P. Madigan, L 3 12s, nonsuit; A. Douglas v, Wm. Langdon, Ll, costs 12s; Sullivan and McKenna y. William O'Keefe, L 4 16s, costs L 2 16s, Mr Mackechuie for Elaintiff; H. Fountain v. Geo. Wheaton, 110s 6d, costs Ll 2s 6d, Mr Theo. Cooper for plaintiff) same v. Geo. McCo slin, L 5 Is, costs Ll 178; Thos. Thwaites v. Jno. Waymouth, jn: \, 13 16s lOd, costs Li 3s 6d, Mr Thome fcr plaintiff; James Wiseman v. George Saville, L 5, costs Ll 2s 6d, Mr Thorne for plaintiff; Sullivan and McKenna v. H. Healey, L 2 2s 6d, costs L 2 15s, Mr Mackechnio for plaintiffs ; D. B. Cruickshank v. R. C. Macdonald, LIS, costs L 2 Ss; P. A, Philips ,v. R, Mormon, L__ 10s, costs 12s; J.Phillips v. R.J. Clarke, Ll2los, costs Ll 4s ; John King v. R. Kirkwood, Ll 12s 6d, costs Ll 12s 6d, Mr Campbell for j plaintiff; F. Tierman v. lona G.M. CoX. L 9 12, calls, costs Ll 17s ; Lewis Moses V. J. A. Jagger, L 6, costs 10s ; C. J. Ellertl John Harvey, L 5 2s Id, costs 16s; C. 0. Hill and Co. v. Henry Connop, LIS 2sCd, costs L 2 ss. ~ ; JJ Adjourned.—A large number of caseß 1 were adjourned ; others were confessed and If struck out. defended cases. . -A?s

Sinclair v. Donovan.—Claim Ll4 15s,— A| Mr Brookfield for'plaintiff, and Mr Tole in .1 defence.—This was a claim for a new set qf 11 teeth supplied by Dr. Sinclair to Mrs |f§ Donovan.—Dr. Sinclair deposed that he was a prof essional dentist and medicalprao- '■[■_ titioner.iOn |tho day in question Mrs Bono- A van called upon him at the hotel, Onehunga, fl where he was staying, and wanted himftpril examine her mouth. He did so, and recommended a new set of teeth. Mrs Dona- i van expressed a wish for a new set, but must ,-; ask her husband. She did so. Mr Donovan Jj returned and confirmed the agreement ttM make a new set for nine guineas, ftnd paid 3 Ll deposit. He took out sundry stumps, "'■__ and performed eight operations in the ■ moutu. He visited the lady once. • His H visiting chargo was L 2 2s. The teeth were M property cut, and fitted remarkably welL Ayi Subsequently Mrs Donovan returned the teeth, saying she objected to artificial teeth, A|j and would not have them.—To Mr Tole: J_ He was staying at Ternahan's HoteL-^ ,| Plaintiff was subjected to a long and searching cross-examination by defendant's coun- if sel. Dr. Sinclair said he had left his > * diplomas ftnd certificates at his house Aft in Sydney.—Mr Tole contended that || there was no evidence that Dr. Sin', | clair was a qualified medical practitioner, A or that he was a registered dentist under ;■ the Act. He could not claim as such.—MrilS Brookfield urged that Dr. Sinclair was cer- AS tainly entitled to the value of the teeth.— His Worship Baid according to the Act he must be registered, and the register had not'" % beon produced.—Mr Brookfield accepted aj _| nonsuit, with costs. (Left sitting.) * A