S.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 170, 20 July 1910, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

(Ecfore Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.SI.) Judgment for plaintiff by default v.as given In the following undefended oases: — W. 11. B. Firth v. A. Courts, Tauranga, £10 9/; Co.-op. L>gg and Poultry Supply Co. v. Mrs. M. McParlane, Hautapu, £G 3/G; 51. A. Jones v. 11. I'eake, Ongarue. £13 G/lj; Muir and Moodie v. J. Zacharlah, Wellington, £1G 8/9; W. A. Thompson and Co. V. Mrs. Clarke, Otahuhu, £4 5/; Abdullah aud Cordes T. N. Sabo, Masterton, £35 5/7; Win. Monaghan v. James Dlgnan, Point Chevalier, £22 IG/S; executors of Robert Hew v. Geo. Ukich, Awauui, £1C 18/11; Tl. 11. Itelmers v. Chas. E. Dee, Kingsland, £42 10/11; N. Cohen v. G. N. Lunie, Ngapaenga, £-; John Burns and Co. v. Mrs. M. Kevey, Parnell, £1 S>/3; same v. S. Williams, 10/4; Sanford, Ltd., v. JJobt. Jtfosley, Grey-street, 17/ C; Win. Kilgour v. E. W. Wood, Pukekobe, £S 2/10; same v. Jas. aud Annie G. llowell, Newniarket, £13 5/4; Thomas Vivian v. A. McNeil, Coronmndel, £23 14/; same v. John McNeil, Coromaudcl, £12 0/6; Win. Highman v. A. McNeil, Coroumudel, £0 0/6; 11. Gray v. IS. M. Cray.-ford, l'oneonby, £1 16/6; I*. Bryant T. E. Crawford, Ponsouby, £1 2/3; same v. Mrs. A. Hayden, Pousonby, £1 S/C; A. ClarU and Sons, Ltd., v. C. S. Smith, Ilawera, £14 4/4; J. Andrew v. A. P>eachey, Ponsonby, £20 2/; same v. L. Quintal, Freeman's Bay, 9/7; J. C. Spedding v. 11. Williams, Epsom, £76 11/; F. Petrie and Co. v. L. Lucistieh, Waiharara, £9 3/1; Aulsebrook and Co. v. Mrs. C'ulpHt, North cote, £5 5/. AN UCS USUAL CASE. The D.S.C., Ltd., in liquidation (Br. Bamford) proceeded against Thos. Payton, of Clevedon (Mr Moore, instructed by Messrs Earl and Kent), for £7. The claim was that in March last the defendant came to plaintiff's warehouse at Aueblaml, and purchased goods, tendering therefor a cheque for £4 1/10, drawn by nellaby and Co., Ltd. The cheque was read In error for £11 1/10, and excess of change amounting to £7 was given. Evidence was given by the cashier and the ealesman employed at the plaiutiffs' at the time. They both, owing to the failing light, mistook the cheque for £11 1/10. The purchases made by the defendant amounted to £2 8/6, and £S 13/4 change Tvas given. The salesman said that defendant carried tile parcel away himself. For the .defence an a-bsalute denial of all the allegations was made. Defendant said that all the change he received was £1 13/4, and he did not carry the parcel away himself, but had it sent down to the station. On reaching his home, in accordance with his usual custom, he went over the money he lad, and balanced it with his expenditure. On this occasion there was no excess of money. He received a letter a little while later from the plaintiff company, but he did not reply, as lie knew he was in the right. The first time he thought of writing was when Bamford aud Brown wrote threatening to sue Tiiin. In answer to hts Worship defendant said he kept a small book with all his expenditure and receipts entered up. This would show the receipt of Hellaby's cheque, and the change he took home on that occasion.