R.M. COURT-THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 214, 8 September 1892, Page 5

R.M. COURT-THIS DAY.

(Before Dr. Giles, R.M.)

UNDEFENDED CASES.

In the following undefended coses judgments were given for plaintiffs :—Nathaniel Randell v. James C. Skeen, claim, 16s 6d, coats 7«; Cook and Gray v. John Barton, claim £4 14s 6d, coats 15s: Alexander Croskery v. H. T. Olney, claim £7 15s, costs £1 lis;- W. and G. Wjnstone v. Thomas Kelly, claim £11 ls sd, coßts £2 15a; Alexander Croskery v. J. H. Gunn, claim £1 0a Bd, costs 7s; B. Patterson v. W. Esdaile Thomas, claim 18a, costs 6s; Hulme and Co. v. C. Robson, claim £3 6s Bd, costs 16s 6d ; George Brothers v. James Coleman, claim £2 0a 6d, costs 16s Gd; David Goldie v. James C. Skeen, claim £2 ls sd, costs 17s Gd; Alexander Croskery v. James and Samuel Brown and Maurice Kelly, claim £20, costs £3 25.; Alexander Croskery v. Chas. W. S. Purdie, claim £1 19s, costs 9s ; Alexander Croskery v. Thomas Foley, claim 18b, coats 6s; Reid and Gray v. Owen Griffiths, claim £2 2s 7d, costs 7s ; J. J. Craig v. D. Wilson, claim £3 0s 4d, costs £1 Is 6d; Mahomed Eddris v. Nellio Brimmer, claim 13s, costs 6s; Alexander Croskery v. Richard Walker, claim £3 14s, cost £1 Ob 6d. DEFENDED cases. Alexandep. Croskery v. Edward Hughes.—Claim, £2 2s, balance due for boots supplied.—Mr Myers appeared for plaintiff.—Plaintiff deposed that be was assignee bo the book debts of Garrobt Bros., boob manufacturers. The debt was included in tho list supplied bo him by the Official Assignee He couid nob swear that tbe money was due.—Defendant, who is a detective, produced receipts to show that the amounb was paid.—Dr. Giles said bhat the evidence was all on one side. There was posibive evidence to show that the amount was paid by defondant, and there was no reason to doubt it.—Judgment was given for defendant.

Thomas Burton v. Andrew Duthie.— This was a claim for £10 Is 4d groceries supplied-— Dr. Laishley (instructed by Mr A. E. Dovdre) appeared for the plaintiff and, Mr Brasaey for the defendant.—ln evidence the plaintiff stated that defendant ordered the goods for his mother and family, stating that he- would pay for bhem." The goods were duly delivered. Defendant's father had also refused to pay the debt. He believed he lived at Orakei Island, The defendanb had promised to pay the amount in the early part of the present year.—After other evidence had been given, Mr Brassey submitted that there was no evidence of accounb stated and agreed on between the parties.—Dr. Giles said ho considered that the defendant was entitled to particulars of the claim, and non-suited plaintiff. It transpired that the plaintiff made oub his own particulars of demand and issued his summons without consulting a solicitor.

George McCaul v. M. H. Keesing.— Claim £22 17s 4d, to balance of account for goods supplied/ Defendanb paid into Court £3 18- in respect of items of account commencing July 31st, 1888. Defendant got the payment of £10 at £1 made on 17th and 18th November, 1888 and 1889. These submitted items constituted the whole account between tho plaintiff and defendant.—Mr WJ J. Napier appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr E. VV. Burton for the defondant, said his client denied all lia-bility.-Mr Napier contended that Mr Keesing and his partner. were both liable. Evidence as to liability was given by Frank Brown, who stated that he was in the plaintiff's employ as book-keepor when the goods were supplied to Keesing and Coin ay ns. (Left sitting.)