S.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 166, 14 July 1914, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

ißefore Mr. C. C. Kettle, tt.il.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiff with costs was given in the following undefended cases: — Johnston and .Noble v. Arthur W. Ilone (Devonport), £4 :i, 11: Wins tone, Ltd.. v. Mrs. L. Manning Kity). £1 17/0: House and Daking. Ltd.. v. 11. Rusdeti iNcwtoni, £3 15/9; Cashmore Bros., Ltd.. v. John J. O'Rorke (Kdeu Terrace). £07 0/4; Wilson and Horton v. I). Ulllies 1 Remuera), £U; Harry C Bennett v. Charles F. Bushby (Wellington!. £t 10/0; L. S. Maiwell v. J. Hntron (Birkenheadi. £2 8/: Rene Bieleski v. W. I. Barber (Ellcrsliei, fl3 15/; Auckland Brewery Kniployees" I'ulou v. K. Boyd (Newmarketi, £1 11,-': Taylor and Co., v. A. L. Walker (Glsbornel, £1 18/6; same v. Thomas Qnavlc iTanmarunull. £2 r. -. A. H. Nathan, Ltd.. v. W. Hicks IWalbii. £10 3/11; Eaton Bros. v. Tlios. Seaver ll'arnell). £1.1 4.~: John Court. Ltd.. v. A. Baker (Kawa Kiiwar. £4 9/3: J. W. Strasburgcr v. A. M. Pi'.kcthly (New Lvnnh- f'i '0 : Peak and "Kent v. J. .S." UoTdsworth iHelensvlllel, £0 o, ; Taylor and Co. v. J. 11. Gray (Uastiues). £2 10/; Auckland Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Cnion v. Miss M. Lynch (City.. £1 12/: Drapery and General Importing Co. v. It H. Nelson (City). £S 17.1): W. E. Hutchison v. E. Crouch and Agnes Crouch itffyl, £84 11 11; Moody. Hackett. and Moody v. Leah Levy Uirey Lynni. CI: frames Mary Byrne v. Harold Kill (City). £1 G-; E. Porter nnd Co. v. R. Roberts (City). £8 G, 2: Edson and Schmidt v. F. W. Arns (Mt. Edeni, £1 1(1,. : A. Tooman and Co.. Ltd.. v. A. 11. Conza ll'onsonbv). £1 7. :i: Shanly and Suckling v. Agnes c-rouch Hityi. £1 17/0: E. H. Baker v. Catherine Clark (Ponsonby). £2 4/!»: W. J. Maddren v. Thos. Roxburgh iTe I'apapal. 18/3: Brett Printing and Publishing Co.. Ltd., v. Hell and Sou (Newton), £0 11/; Zona Rail v. Itlri Moerua (llangatlkl). » ID ; John Court, Ltd.. v. R. J. Roach (City). £1 IS/10: 11. McClymont v. .las. ilrant (Cltyi. £2 10/: Dalgety and Co.. Ltd.. v. R. N. Walker iPanmurel. £H 4/11; John Burns and Co., Ltd.. v. li. MeLeod lAwanui N.i. £1 14 0: Jos. A. Lamb v. Sidney Windus (City). £14 10/; Standard Insurance Co. v. E. S. Soutter (Avondale). £3 3/: T. and S. Morrin. Ltd.. v. T. Robert* (Takapuna). £7 3/1: Annie Coleman v. Harold Hill (Cllyl. 17<: A. Fiehlsend v. John Sorrensen iPnrnell). £1 IG, : W. .1. Robinson v. Mrs. Harriet Bailey (Parnell). £1 1. ; E. Burkhardt V. M. Lenlhan (Grey Lynn), £8 16. I. BUILDING TIMBER. if Tbe Taupo Totara Timber Company (Mr. Cahiil) sued John .1. Melkle for £15 7/8. being balance slated to be due on nn orde.for about £100 worth of bulldimj timber tilled by them In February, March aud April last. A representative of the plaintin- company staled that defendant, as n builder, was offered discounts- totalling 12J per cent, provided he made a monthly settlement. Defond'aut. however, failed to do this, and consequently forfeited the disThe defendant, who appeared on his own i behalf, contended that he should not have I been sued, as lie had ordered the timber !as representative of a Miss Mills. He also ] objected Io certain charges for carting, and declared that much of the timber nad come in longer lengths than he had ordered. with the result that much of It had been cut to waste. He had declined to pay for this waste Umber. •Henry 11. Knight, a carpenter, gave evidence as io the lengths and sorts of timber supplied, and stated that much of it had been cut to waste. HUs Worship said, thttt as plaintiff had not represented himself as 'Miss Mills' agent, he could not disclaim liability. With regard to h.s complaints about the timber. that was not a matter that could be considered, as plaintiff had used the timber and had not rejected it. Judgment would Ik> for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with euSLs.