R.M. COURT-THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 56, 7 March 1889, Page 5

R.M. COURT-THIS DAY.

(Before Dr. Giles, R.M.)

undefended cases.

In the following cases judgment went in favour of plaintiff by default: — J. M. Alexander v, E. Gale, £20 ; Sash and Door Company v. J. Pilkington, £8 8s Id ; School Commissioners for thS Provincial District of Auckland v. M. Boland, £100 ; Sash and Door Company v_ O'Brien and another, £10 18s 6d ; Millar and Hardy v. J. J. Cole, £5 12s ; Beanev, Marks and Co. v. John Vare. £34 14s fid ; Cook v. S. Armstrong, £2 5s lid ; Cook v. J. Gardner, £5 4s 4d ; E. Hesketh v. W. F. I'orber and W. P. Porter, junr., £4 13s 6d ; Steadman and Co. v. Captain W. Hargravcs, 7s 9d ; Herbert Jones v. J. T; Johns, 12s 6d ; Frozen Meat Company v. Walter Roub, £32 4s lid; Thos. Scobfc v. Captain Hargraves, £1 7s 6d ; W. R. Cook v. N. Ritchie, £1. DEFENDKD CASES. Lonergan v. Leydon.—Claim, £4.—Mr Beale appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Cotter for the defendant.—This was an action brought by Lonergan and Sons, against John Ley don, auctioneer, and the particulars of claimsec out bhabtheplaintiffs, on the 19th January, 1889, at the request of the defendant, provided the material and made up a suit of clothes for the defendant, which the defendant agreed to accept and to pay therefor tho sum of £4. The plaintiffs maintained that they did everything on their pari to entitle him to receive the said £4, but the defendant refused to accept delivery of the goods and also to pay for the same. Evidence was given "by Thos. Lonergan, who deposed that the suit of clothes in question were ordered by the defendant for Dr. Evans. A good suit was ordered, bub subseqnenbly the defendant said he could nob pay £5 10s for it. Several alterations were then made to make the goods suit the defendant. In answer to Mr Cotter, witness said the coat came back three times for alteration. He never said the defendanb need not take the goods if they did nob suit. was o-iven for the defendant with costs Iss 6d.