(Before Mr C. C. Kettle, S.M.) DEFENDED CASES. The Onus of Proof.—The Brett Printing Co. proceeded against W. H. Wright for £S 1/S, which they claimed was due for newspapers sold and delivered. Prior to November, 1005, the defendant was in business, and made arrangements that the plaintiffs should supply him with a certain quantity of papers. In November, 1905, Wright sold his business, but did not notify the defendants, and the papers were still sent to him. His Worship held that the onus of proof was on the defendant, who, he added, had not given proper notice. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs. Observations to Follow.—W. J. Harker, land agent, claimed £10 from Ada Jane McMillan for the eale of a property. The defendant contended that'the plaintiff had not effected the sale; she had sold the property herself. His Worship reserved judgment, as he wished to make some remarks on such transactions. A Contract Matter.—The hearing of the claim of P. Campling against S. Woods and J. Gibson, for £130 3/5, was resumed. The claim was for the material, and the labour of the woodwork in a brick house of the defendants. After evidence had been called ou both sides, his Worship said that he could not determine what the contract was from the evidence, so he proposed to give judgment, based on the actual value of the wovk done and the material used. He suggested that a report as to this should be presented to the Court. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. The following judgment summons cases, in which the debtors did not appear, were disposed of, the orders being suspended for eeven days:—E. A. Waters, dealer, v. A. Hassall Cox, journalist (Epsom), order to pay £S 2/6, or 1-1 days . Imprisonment; T. D. McKab, grocer. V. .W. Higgins, bootmaker, order to pay £1 C/ 2or 24 hours. CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM. Iv the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr C. C. Kettle, William John Hood, contractor, sued Mrs Norrle, of Pnrnell, for £24 14/. the balance of the charge for removing aud re-erecting a house. Mr Brookfleld represented the plaintiff, and Mr Hacltett defended. The defendant paid JilS into court. It' was stated that iv November last the plaintiff removed and erected tho buildins for the defendant, who last mouth, in the presence of her architect, Mr John Walker agreed to pay tho sum of £124 14'/ for the work. £100 was paid, and the plaintiff sued for the rest. Mr John M. Walker, in the bos, said he considered the claim n perfectly just one, and had told Mrs Norrle so. It apDeared that the original specifications had" been lost, and that only a copy was produced iv The case was adjourned till later in the day for the production, if possible, of the original papers and specification. AN UNSOLD MOTOR BOAT. In the Magistrate's Court this afternoon L. Lewis, auctioneer, sued A. Method of Onehunga, for £2 2/, the cost of advertis ing for sale a motor boat belonging to the defendant. Mr, Pullen appeared for the plaintiff. It appeared that on the day of sale no prospective purchasers appeared and the boat was not offered. The defend ant stated that he had been told It would cost only 24/ far advertisJug. The case was adjourned tIU next Xfcßta- '
Fairfax Media is the copyright owner for the Auckland Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Fairfax Media. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Print, save, zoom in and more.