S.M. COURT—THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 95, 21 April 1904, Page 2

S.M. COURT—THIS DAY.

I Before Mr. CC. Kettle, S.M.) j Judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default in the following undefended eases: Nicholls and Co. v. George Edwards £2 15/4; Collins Bros- and Co., Ltd., v. Robert T. Smythe, £14 15/5; W. G. Hutchinson v. Lionel Henry Claudet, £13 3/5; Herbert John Silcocks v. Mrs. M. F. Rutlege, £35 4/; James Joiner v. James Percy Gaffey, £8 6/9; Mary Jane Cargo v. Leonard Man- | ning, £25/; Arthur H- Nathan v. Hannah Reid, £11 2/10; Thoma3 Augustus Lonergan and Frederick R. Whatford v. Victor Emmanuel Nielson, £1 12/6; Elizabeth Ring v. C. Tonge. £3 7/6; Mary Beedell v. Robert Handcock, £1 1/3. Ciunp Accounts.—la the case Stephen Conway v. Cardinal Salnty, claim for £1 1.10 which plaintiff alleged was ~lne from defendant in connection with the accouuts of a camping party, Mr W. H. Wilding, to whom the accounts had been referred for a decision, stated in evidence that he had < ome to the conclusion that £1 4/5 was due from defendant's brother, Charles Salnty. Charles Salnty was by consent Joined as defendant, and judgment was entered against him for the sum of £.1 4/5. Two Country Cases.—ln the case L. D. Nathan and Co. v. Robert Batler and Helen. Uutler, of Opotiki. an application had been made on behalf of defendants for an adjournment to enab:-;- evidence to Ift taken at OpotikL—Mr McVeagh, for plaintiffs. opposed an adjournment en the ground that the application was made for the purpose o* delay.—After hearing the evidence or one of plaintifts' travellers, Kis Worship held that Mr McVeagh had made out a pr.ma facie case, and gave judgment for plaictiffs by default for the amount claimed. £167 1/3, defendants to have the right to apply for a re-hearing. His Worship acfawi that if in country cases he heard if a lawyer using the process o£ jrettin? evicieiT- taken at a distance to; the purpose of souring a ti?:py, he woefci consider 't bis dntj to report such a case to the Law ftocay.—in the case of Arthur H. Nathan v. He.en Butle.r. claim £66 14/6, there was u.sc an application on behalf of the defendout for an adjournment.—Mr Baume, who appealed for the plaintiff, called one « the plaintiff's clerks, who stated that • amount lv question I,' never neon pared by defendant.— Hi. Worship' >' t!.e some course as in the first cas. judgment by default for plaintiff :■ Exeunt claimed, defendant to hay righr to apply for a re-henrlng.—ln counsel applied for leave to iss;; ;.u----rrcolate execuuos, and the applications were granted. The ueftttdaaw were rot j represented.