R.M. COURT—THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 176, 27 July 1888, Page 3

R.M. COURT—THIS DAY.

(Before Dr. Giles, R.M.) JUDGMENT SCTMMONS OASES.

His WoKSHir was occupied some time this morning hearing the evidence of various judgment debtors, in many cases he declined to make any order, as tho unfortunates did nob appear to have any means. R. TiJDEHOPK y. Eliza Arthub.— Claim, £5 lls 3d, for work done.—Mr E. W. Burton appeared for the judgment creditor. —Mrs Arthur deposed that a judgment order had been made against her for 5s per week, which she was unable to pay, as her husband was out of work, and she had a large family to support. She had borrowed frcin Mr Lewis Moses £40 on the 2nd of April. £2 was deducted for interest, amount to be repaid in three months. Mr Moses was agent for Mr Isaac f hillip?. On the 2nd of July, being unable to pay, she gave another bill of sale to Mr Phillips for £45. Mr Moses acted for Mr Phillips and gave her tho £45, which she immediately repaid to defray the first loan and the interest due. Tho debt was incurred on account of her son. She had no debts of her own. .She had to pay 10a per week on account of this loan from Mr Moses. —Lewis Moses deposed that he carried on busings as a financial agent. He managed for Mr Isaac Phillips, who had purchased his estate from tho Official Assignee. He corroborated Mrs Arthur's statement regarding the loan. He remembered Mrs Arthur telling him about the summons Tudehope v. Witness insisted upon the ' bill of sale given on the 2nd of April being paid. Witness gave the money himsolf. He had made the £40 since his bankruptcy.— His Worship said that the strongest poinc against the defendant was giving the bill of sale to prevent the seizure of tho furniture, but the circumstances of the case had to be considered. The money had not been borrowed for her own use and the debt was a perfectly genuine one, and the bill of sale was given merely to cover the debt. That, at all events, removed the element of moral fraud, although the act was a wrong one. The utmost he could do was to make an order for small instalments.—He ordered the defendant to pay 2s 6d per week. At yesterday's sitting judgment was given for the plaintiffs with costs in the fellowing undefended cases :—A. Buckland v. Shadgetb, £6 19s 3d ; G. G. Andrews and others v. J. McLaughlin, £3 2s 6d ; G. F. Kelly v. F. Claridge, £34 6s ; E. Porter and Co. v. S. Short, £17 14s; Bailey v. Ertel, 19s 6d ; W. O. Pocklington (Eden Terrace Road Board) v. C. VV. Walker, 8s sd; W. O. Pocklington v. John Davis, £1 lls ; W. O. Pocklington v. L. Dodd, 10s j W. O. Pocklington v. E. Sandall, £2 2s ; W. 0. Pocklington v. J. Lovey, £2 3s; T. Brister v. T. McLean, £1 18s 3d. E. Brett v. E. Hennessey, £1 8s ; J. Page v. J. Smith, £8; E. Drinkwater v. A. Johnson, £4 15s 6d; A. Service v. A. Johnson, £14 la.