R.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 204, 1 September 1887, Page 5

R.M. COURT.

IBIS DAY.

(Before H. G. Seth Smith, R.M.)

UNDEFENDED cases,

Judgmknt went by default iv the following cases:—E. C. Cross v. W. H. Hamley.claim, £1 16s lOd ; costs £1 2s 6d. Frederick Shelton v. E. K. Carr, claim, £2 2s; Costs £1 Is 6d. Percy and Co. v. W. H. Patterson, claim £2 ; costs, £1 Is 6d. Hesketh and Richmond v. W. Hodgson, claim, £1 18s 6d ; costs lis. J. Niccol v. F. C. Smitherton, claim, £7 2s; costs £117s Od. H. Dean v. Flewcllyn, claim for payment of £17 13s wages from Mr Hanchard, as employer, under the sth section' of the Workmen's Wages Act. Judgment was given as prayed. Hamee Nahdeen v. Adra j Morgan, claim 16s ; costs £1 lis 6d. Same v. Grace Graham.claim 10s ; costs £1 llsbd. | Mrs C. Sermon v. H. Smith, claim £10 3s j costs £2 6s. P.- Hutchison v. Campbell, claim £719s 9d ; costs £1 lis. C. Laßoclie (as agent) v. Cooper and Williams, claim £3 ss; costs £1 6s. W. G. Allen v. A.? Fairburn, claim £1 4s 6d ; costs £l 17s.' H. F. Hanchard v. L. D. Evans,' claim £47; costs £4 18s. R. F. Roth v. C. E. Madden, claim £9 16s; costs £116s. DEFENDED CASES. j;, T. Jackson v. W. T. Raymond, .claim,. £1 Is 6d, for advertising and; maintenance of a dog!—Mr Alfred .Whitaker appeared on behalf of" the ' plaintiff. — - The defendant conducted his own case. —Mr Morton deposed, that he. had been a member of the firm of Morton and Jackson, dairyingon business in Auck-, land as auctioneers. The defendant's wife' left a dog with their firhi for sale. It: was duly advertised, • and' maintained, but was not sold j " ultimately it was returned to the defendant. The claim was for' £1 Is 6d ..ppsts.-', in-, curred in connection with the 40g.-^ By the defendant:; Witnes ..was not. now a member of the firm of Mprton and, Jackson, but had transferred the accounts to Mr Jackson by power of attorney.— His Worship pointed out that this nullified the claim, as the defendant had hot accepted the transference of the debt to Mr Jackson.—Mr Whitaker contended that the power of attorney and the deed1 ofdiasolu-, tion of partnership set that matter right. - His Worship thought otherwise, and. asked Mr Whitaker to quote authorities in support of his contention. \ Oh the application of Mr Whitaker the Court adjourned for an hour to afford time for him to look up the authorities. — Upon the Court resuming the question was, further considered, and His Worship ultimately decided that the plaintiff must be. non-suited. ' '.'.'■...-.. -