S.M. COURT.—THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 35, 9 February 1906, Page 2

S.M. COURT.—THIS DAY.

THIS DAT. (Before'Mr C. C. Kettle.) Judgment Summons. — Judgment was friven for the plaintih , in the following un-' dpfended cases.:^—Arthur Yates and Co. v. Edwin George Beeson, £13 l]/5; Upton and Co. v. B. Adams, £6 12/2; A Buckland and Sons v. R. Nl.rholson and Sons, £10 3/6 (order suspended for one monttn. Defended Cases.—Louisa McCarthy (Mr Rinjrnr) sued Hartr Kneelionp (Mr Baxteri for the sum nf £10. Mr Sinper explained that the claim was for conducting the defondant's business dnrlns lite ahspiif«€ in England. The defendant approartipfl the plaintiff ard asked her sevpral times to undertake the management, saylnc thnt she nnd her husband oonld havp rpnt and jras free, and also the snm of £10 whi»n he retnrnod. AftPr snme time the plaintiff undertook the manngpmpfit. and thp firfpprlant rpmained awny for 29 vc-ppks. On his return. alfhoneh asked for spttlemfent. he did not nnv un the amount nllp?ed to hr> promlspri. Thp flpf»ticp was thnt a hnnns wnnUl hp nnid if the on fill ri?ht. hrrt thp flpfenrlnTit aiiefpfl fhnt It flifl nnt. TTp first heard nf tho £10 vrhpn h? camp AftPr hpnrlns the pr'npnpp. Tiis Wnrshin sniri hp wns not satisfied on pvirtPTif , that there trns nn p-rnrp«K fontrict to pay fhi> £10. Thp plni-ntiff was accordingly nonsnitrd withont costs.