S.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 193, 15 August 1911, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

(Before Mr. C. C. Kettle, 8.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given in the following undefended cases:—W. Lamfcourne v. Mrs. F. C. Mountain, £0 8/2; Tyne Bros. v. Mrs. E. Prendergast. £1 18/7; A. W. Blackburn v. G. Snook, £2 5/: Wilson and Horton v. A. Lewis, 7/(5: R. Hannah and Co. v. A. E Aloo. 17/: Commissioner of Taxes t. J. C. T>. Fischer, £4 3/; Commissioner of Taxes v. H. P. Taylor, £8 5/: Adams and Co. v. V. Roche. £3 7/7; Albert Eaton v. Win. Hutchinson, £1 11/; Melrtnim and Browne v. J. F. Jackson, £1 5/; Wilson and Horton v. r. Croeby, £3; Ilngbes and C'ossar v. Lochhead. Ltd., £23 15/ : Mav Rros v Mrs. E. Hollls. £4 15/6: Roope v. W. Bowman, jour.. £5 4/5: Auckland Education Board v. nenry Moyan, £7 10/; National Insurance Co.. N.Z., Ltd.. v. II A N'lcholi? 28 , 2/: . A - K - Pur >Jias v. John lietet. £4; Empire Art Studio Co. v. J. G. Horsley, £1 12/ D; A. J. Parker r. J. Sanderson £1 0/: G Schoneld v. .7. Bntler. £1 7/4: j' D Roberts v. Tod Smith. £27 3/3: Hellaby, Ltd.. v. B. Oarratt, £» 0/2: Hellaby. Ltd v. W. Bnrgoyne. 13/3: Cnnnlncham v. mm herth, £1 4/3 : Hill and Plnmmer v A f, 2 ? 3/ " ; Campbell and Ehrenr,?o/?"„ L K ,d 'l v - E - '• r<l »nd Co.. £l!l 2/0; Robertson Bros, v II Clhb £3 2/; Manriee O'Connor v. Alfred and Annie Crosshy, £,,; r. E. Mackie. Ltd v Frank Lt f d W,, v rt, p £L ; , 1/fi ; * E '»»«*am and Co" Ltd., v. P. Snlenta, £6 10/2. CLAIM FOR INSTALMENTS. Judgment was given for plaintiffs In a ookc rn which the Aockland Jewellery Co sued Robert Colt for 10/. the amount of Instalments alleged to be owing on a waMi ine defendant maintained that the artlrie was defec-tire. and did not come up to what he had been led to believe It wan apparent however, that Oie timepiece had ben subjected to rough usage