S.M. COURT.—THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 114, 15 May 1902, Page 2

S.M. COURT.—THIS DAY.

(Before Mr H. W. Brabant, S.M.)

Undefended Cases.—Judgment for plaintiff: was given in the following undefended cases: —J. Hodgson (Mr Martin) v. C. P. Anderson, £(i' 2 11/2, costs £G 3/; Morris Freeman (Mr McVeagh for Mr Neumegen) v. William Shore, £4 15/3, costs 10/; Briscoe and Co., Ltd. (Mr Gillies) v. Francis Eros., £5 SILO, costs £1 3/G; saute

v. Newton Fairs, £4 15/, costs IG/; same v. A. E. Langley, claim £6 10/8, c.sts £1 3/G; Macky Logan, Steen and Co. (Mr Mowlem) v. C. Flanagan, £50 8/9, costs £2 14/; B. J. M. Kemp (Mr .Burton) v. Mrs C. A. Newman, £18 11/4, costs £1 10/6; R. and W. Hellaby (Mr Shrewsbury) v. Geo. Page, £2 11/11, costs 10/; Astley and srm (Mr Shrewsbury) v. W. Taylor, 1~/6, costs 7/; 11. Furness and Co. (Mr Shrewsbury) v. Chas. Ford, £13 15/5, costs £1 10/G; Thomas Cruinpton (Mr Johnston) v. Matty- Ann Carlquist, £10, costs £1 6/6; Austin Walsh and Co.. (Mr Bamford) v. Harry Priston," £S IS/, costs £1 3/G; Arthur Yates and Co. (Mr Shrewsbury) v. Caroline Adeline Newman, £29 11/8, costs £3; E. Swarm (Mr Alexander) v. J. T. Williams, £."). costs £1 2/6; R. Arthur and Co. (Mr Bamford for Mr. Buddie) v. J. Cleai, £7 G/G, costs £1 3/6; Geo, Peace v. Alfred Rhodes, £ 1 12/, costs 5/.

J. MeJntyre v. Hartley and Co., claim £21 5/11. This was a claim for work done at the One Tree Hill Waterworks, which defendant alleged ' been faultily done, and counter-claim-ed £27 2/6, the cost of replacing the work. . The evidence was c6ncluded tnis morning, His Worship reserving his decision. Mr Bamford, instructed by Mr Haima, appeared for plain titi and Mr Martin for defendant.