B.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 152, 30 June 1887, Page 8

B.M. COURT.

(Before H. Smith, E?q.,R.M.) I UNDEFENDED CASES.

P. HuTCHiNSoy v. J. Budd, claim L3l7i 3d ; Partington Bros. v. J. It. • Smith, claim L 26 12s sd.—Judgment for L'2l lys 2d ; F.'Wood'ruff v.' Mrs Brown, claim L 2 2e4d ; J. C. Sharland v. A. B. Shepherd, claim LlO ; E. McKeown v. M. Gra^c.—Judgment for LVOs 8d ; Martin and another v. Wm. Smith, claim L 3 4s ; T. Macky v. F. C. Rosser, claim L 7 7s 1 Id,;. A. Quacy. v. F. Cook, claim LI 13s;-: J. S. L. Cox v. S. G. Bray, claim Ll7 16s 7d; J. M... Gee v. D. Lynch, claim Lβ 73 5d ; Earle and Another v. W. Herbert, claim L 6 4s-3d ; Taylor and Another v. A, G, Davis, claim L66s ;. Geo. Campbell v. J. Van * Brackle, claim L 4 \1& 6d; P. Hutchinson V. Watkins, claim L 3 2s 2d. dkfexded cases.' George Case v. Robert Johnstone.— This was a claim of L 46, in that the defendant converted to his own use wrongfully, a certain stack of hay, a bath, a boiler and other articles, valued at E46. , —•Mγ Rigby appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Mahony for the defendant.— J.bf, appeared that the defendant was second mortgagee of the farm--:, of plaintiff's, and 'sold him up. — The plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that k he : pufc' the things in and so claimed right to take same away. The wire-netting , was brought out from England by plaintiff, and used for a fowl run. The boiler had-been set in a chimney built by plaintiff. Defendant told plaintiff.to.call for them next day, but he never could get them. — By Mr Mjihony,: Was in a groat state of -impecuniosity. 'Had been forgiven '< he costs,of the last suit at the Court-against by.the-defendant. -Owed the defendant a considerable amount. Defendant had had some of hay as part payment. The wire netting , was fixed to posts and live trees. The oath was boxed in. The house, which he built himself, was better built than if he ha«l built it*for defendant. Had never expected to be turned out. The bath was never intendeds to be removed.' ■ The bath was taken out after defendant had purchased the mortgage. . The goods taken out were not concealed in the ti-tree bunh.