R.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 23, 28 January 1888, Page 5

R.M. COURT.

(Before H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., R.M.) JUDGMENT SUMMONS CASES.

Gee and Potter v. C. Pra— Claim, £13 13s 6d.— Defendant was examined, and was ordered to pay the amount claimed on or before February 24th, and 17s costs, with an alternative of 14 days' imprisonment. G. Mcßride v. J. Verman.—Claim, £2 13s.—Defendant did not appear, and was ordered to pay the amount claimed and 5s costs, or in default take 7 days' imprisonment. Nelson Moate and Co. v. T. A. Turley. —Claim, £2 14s.—By consent defendant was ordered to pay the sum claimed and costs 9s by instalments of 5s a week. G. Hulme V. W. Milder.—Claim, £16 8s 6d.—Defendant did not appear, and was ordered to pay before February 3rd with an alternative of 21 days' imprisonment. F. W. Smith v. J. Brown.—Claim,. £7 lls lid.—Defendant was ordered to pay by instalments of 2s 6d a week, and costs Bs.

S. C. Smith v. H. M. Jackson.—Claim, £21 2s 2d.— Defendant did not appear, and was ordered to pay the sum claimed.

The Official Assignee v. M. Robinson. —Claim, £67 8s lid.—Defendant consented to pay in full by instalments of 5s a week, and it was agreed to. R. Rew v. R. T. Grahame.—Claim, £2 3s 5d. —By consent defendant was ordered to pay on or before February 27th, with an alternative of 7 days' imprisonment. DEFENDED CASES. E. H. Jagger v. E. Cox.—Claim, £4 14s> for services rendered.—Mr Pu'rchas ap" peaved for plaintiff/ and Mr Keetley for defendant. — After hearing evidence His Worship decided that the evidence as to any agreement having been made between the parties was insufficient, and non-suited plaintiff with costs.