R.M. COURT—THIS DAY

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 11, 14 January 1892, Page 8

R.M. COURT—THIS DAY

(Beforo Mr H. W. Bishop, 11. M.)

UXIiEFENDICD CASES. Judgments were given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases: J. and M. McLaughlan v. Samuel Pascoe, claim £1 12s 3d, costs 93; William McArthur and Co. v. W. I. Craisr, claim £29 2s 7d, costs £3 13s; C. G. Hill and Co. v. John Ryan, claim £9 5s 9d, costs £1 ss: Thomas Steaduian and Co. v. J. W. Wrightson, claim £3 I2s Bd, costs 9s; W. Bond v. J. Ros?, claim £3, costs 19s 6d: Thomas Steadir.an and Co. v. W. Way, claim £1 8s 4d, costs 103 ; Alexander Croakery v Cbas. A. Garrefct, claim £5 ss, costs 10s : Wro. E. Giles v. Frank Stanley, claim £3 18s 10d, costs 7s; Tbos. Steadman and Co. v. Ah May, claim £3 0a 9d, costs 7s- Cook and Gray v. W. Mclndoe, claim £3 9s, costs 6s: _ Chas. E. Button v. Henry Laagdon, claim £2, costs 9s ; Ann Hewitt v. Frank Montague, claim £2 eost3 6s ; Walsh and Co. v. Jane Ha'lliday, claim £4, costs £1 3s 6d ; G P Cox and Son v. Edvvard Fail, claim" £4 6s, costs £1 8s; G. P. Cox and Son v. Thomas Asher, claim 14s 6d" co=ts 17s 6d ; Arch Hill Road Board v. J p Jones, claim 2s 6d, costs 7s ; Arch Hillßoad Board v. Owner of Lob 36, parb 16, Section 7, Suburbs of Auckland, claim 6s 3d 7s ; Arch Hill Road Board v. Chatte. Clayton, claim £112s 6d .costs 7s; A.eh Hill Road Board y. E. H. Hunt, claim 153, costs 7s; Waitemata Goun y Council v. Ignatius H. Gee, claim te Is 2d, 133. . ■ ■'•:'•■