S.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 139, 13 June 1911, Page 6

S.M. COURT.

, (Before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. - Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for the following amounts in default of appearaDce of defendants in the appended cases-— A. A. White v. William Murdock Cooke, £1 o/; Roope Brothers v. Louis Berlyn, £3 3/; Enid Jane Trevelyun v. Thomas Callaghan. £5 6/; F. G. Alderton v. — Dobbs, £2 6/C: John Jodes v. M. Fletcher, £2 3/3; Kauri Timber Co. v. Peter H. Warren £12 3/; HutchiDßon Bros., Ltd. v. W. E. Streat, £2 7/6; R. and B. Duder v. J. Crole. £10 3/6; G. D. Bates v. W. E. Sinott, £3 4/6; David Silk v. Archibald Hammond, £2 i 10/6; Grace Houehen v. F. Roche, £14 14/: I Executors R. Bew v. R. Williams, £1 16/6; Same v. Sam Mclnnes, £11 17/2; Smith and Caughey v. E. O. Stoyte. £G 2/: Roope -Brothers v. G. James, £5 3/; Same v. George Siddins, £2; Same v. Thomas Martin, 7/U; Same v. C. Walsh, £3 15/2; Leon Wlttner t. William Burns Smith, £2 2/0: T. B. Jacobsen v. .Tames Gleadow, £10: C. Salman v. G. Meredith. £13 15/3; E. Porter and Co. v. W. M. Emmerton, £9 10/; H. Klmber v. Mrs. George Gill, £1 16/3; E. F. .Toneß v. Robert Robertson, £6 3/2; Boope Bros. -v. E. Samuels, £2 10/. A GUARANTEE ENFORCED. Hlb Worship gave judgment this morning, in the case brought by Hancock and Co. and E. B. D.__ur against Andrew Gordon, Ralph Montgomery, Wm. Alley, and George Alley to recover £200. Dr. Bamforfl appeared lor the plaintiff, and Mr. DeniUston _or the defence. Mr. Kettle said the defendants guaranteed, under bill of sale and mortgage, certain monies. The facts had been admitted as foUo-rs:—The plaintiffs made arrangements with one Gill to grant him a lease of an bote' at Neavesvllie upon payment of a bonus of £600. The defendants entered Into a guarantee to the extent of £300. A | bill of sale was also given over the stock and ji mortgage oror the lease, the r.ifp of Jntenest being 7 per cent. His Worship, after reviewing the legal aspect of the I question, gave judgment for the plaintiffs. Dr. JJamford said the judgment need only be against Mr. Montgomery, as Mr. Gordon I and the .Messrs. Alley had paid up their proportion. Judgment was accordingly entered against i Ralph Montgomery for £100. His Worship suggested that it might be Mr. Montgomery, could claim to hold the .securities. Dr. Bai-ford said that wouM be a matter I for action at tba Supreme Court. Mr. Dennlstoii claimed originally that they were entitled to the securities. I