S.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 203, 26 August 1909, Page 3

S.M. COURT.

(Before Mr-C C. Kettle, S.M.) default cases: ■*■■■■ In the following cases judgment was entered for the plaintiff by default, witli costs:—Hutchlnsou--Bros., "Ltd., v. B. S. Shepherd, ilangonui, £8 1/1; Sharland anil Co., htd., t. Tnterl Wl Repa Gisborne, £8 0/S; P. Petrie aud Co. v. J. Simundich, Wailiaraca, £>5 4/I0;"R. Rewv. J. Hohea, Airanui North. £3 17/; Commissioner of Taxes V. R. F. Moore, £15.1T/e; G. .A. Colesahd Co., Ltd., v. W. C. Soar, £68 12/7; Auckland Brewers and .Aerated Waters Employees' Union v. W. Kisby, £2 2/; same v M. Perry. £1' 15/; same y. JJ._ Hamblin, £1. is/; P. Bryant w P. Glllespie, £3 7/1; (i. Doughty and .Cβ. .V. W. F." Ford,' Te' itui ti, £1 13/5; D. Hedley v. J. Meelian, Grahanrstown, £1 17/8;-P'." Bryant v. W. Katsrell, Thames, £1 14/10; E.-G-. Clarke v. B. Seagar, £1 io/; J. Ehrman v. G. Smith, Gisborne, £3 6/3; W. Phillipps and Son v. W. Webb, £7 8/4; R. B. Morris v. G. Owen," £4 14/; .T. R. Nairn v. J. Mangan, £1 18/4; A-. fi.--B. Watson T. J. M. Manson, £6 8/6; E. Q. Clarke v. R. Swlndley, £4 10/; Donald and Edenborough v. C. H. Keane. £1 12/8. . DETAINED OR-STORED? " ' Hearing of the ease, W. P.- Nautrhton y. Mre. B. Grayd.en,. partly heard- some time ago, was concluded. T-he plaintiff's claim was for the return of certain goods alleged to have been' wrongfully detained by defendant, or in default of their return the sum of £42 10/, and £10 damages for the alleged wrongful detention of goods. Defendant denied that the " goods had been wrongfully detained and claimed the sum .of £1S 2/ ns payment for storage. She also claimed sundry other amounts, making the total of the counter claim £32 10/. ■ Mr. Prendergast appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Hanna for the defendant. The ma"isrrate found that the defendant, had no right' to the amount claimed as storage, but he thought she was entitled to some reward for having cared for plaintiff's good's. Eβ was. of opinion that defendant, -wrongfully withh-eld the goods as security for- thU fliritn I'oa storage. The demand whs aro-siy in excess of the real lien. Strictly speiiking, defendant was entitled to some damages, but. on the .(Other h.ind, plaintiff had almost abandoned his goods, and Mrs Graydon was entitled under the "equity and good conscience" clause to some fair remuneration for bavins cared for them.- Uα would allow £5. which amount could hss set off against £5 which he would allow a« damages to plaintiff. His Worship ordered all the goods to be handed over to plaintiff. Defendant was ordered to j>ay costs. A HORSE TRADE. Mr.. Kettle gai-e jud/nent in the cr9» Thomas Cunningham V. William Montgomery, n claim for £91 5/6 for alleged breach of contract. Tee contract in questfon, which was alleged to have been entered into by defendant, was- a contract to purchase a racehorse for the sum of £125. The defendant did not take the horse, and it' was sold at auction for £49 7/. The amount of tl]te claim- was made up of the difference between the price agreed upon and the actual amount realised, and the cost of keeping the horse in the meantime. Mr. E. MaeCormlck ifor Messrs, Aljsqn and Alison) appeared fox lie plaintiff, and •Mγ. R. A. Singer for the defendant: -His" "Worship gave judgment" for piaintiff fop-tbe sum of £83 3/, with costs. £9JLB/. Mr. Singer gave notice of appeal. ■ ■ ■ A: PROMISSORY,. >'QTE. James Hill claimed from .Alfred W. Ellis the sum of-£3S. the amount due under a promissory note. Mr A. E.'Skelton appeared for the plain tiff arid Mr Pullen for the defendant. Defendant admitted having gjyeh tile cote, but said tbax-the goods for which, the note was given were not merchantable, and valueless. He offered to return the goods to plain-tiff, hut refused to pay for them. (Proceeding.)