R.. COURT—THIS DAY;

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 185, 7 August 1890, Page 8

R.. COURT—THIS DAY;

(Before Dr. J. Gilea, R.M.)

UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs in the following undefended cases:—Henry Louis Possenniskie v. W. R. Fosbroke, claim £6 12s ; Brown, Campbell and Co. v. Patrick Quinn, claim £26 10s; F. Williams v. H. Perm, claim £3 2e 9d ; Churles Heeketh v. A. Purdie, claim £1 15a lid ; Union Bank of Australia v. Thomas Henry, claim £2615s 10d. DEFENDED CASES. Mart Wynne v. Mrs Baker.—Tine was a claim for £1 11s 6d for conlinemenb fees. Mr Hugh Shortland appeared for the plaintiff, Mr O'Meagltcr attended on behalf of the defendant. He raised the objection that the summona did not allege that this married woman possessed separate estate. Mr O'Meugher quotod a number ot authorities in support of this contention. —Mr Shortland argued that since the passing of tho Married Woman's Property Protection Act married womo:* might be sued on tho same basis as single women. He would ask for an order because he felt sure of tho law upon tho point. Ho had gone into the matter thoroughly with counsel, and was confident that if at any time they could prove separate estate they could recover. — Dr. Giles cited various authorities that upheld Mr O'Meagher's objection, and ultimately the case was struck o ut with costs 10s 6d. R. S. Sakdall v. Henry Wilson.—This was a claim for 7s 10a, balance of an account. —Mr Mabony appeared on buhalf of tho defendant. After hearing the evidence His Worship uon-Buitod tho plaintiff, as lie confiidered there was no proof of debt.—Costa 10s 6d were allowed.

John- Henry Han nek v. James Stani.kv. —This was a claim for 12-i 6d for ront.— Defendant admitted that 7s 6d was due, and ultimately Dr. Giles made an order for the payment of that amount.