DANEVIRKE R.M. COURT.

Bush Advocate, Volume VII, Issue 650, 16 July 1892, Page 2

DANEVIRKE R.M. COURT.

(Before A. Turubull, Esq., R.M.) Friday, July 15. Shannon and Carlson v. P. Ljungist, claim £3 7s 9d. Mr Bamford r plaintiff. Mr Shannon was one the members of the firm ot Carlson id Shannon, and the amount sued r was still owing. Judgment for nount claimed and costs. J. H. C'ayton v. Baker, claim .£1 6a >d. No appearance of defendant, ldgment for amount claimed and ists. Same v. J. Chicken, claim £3 7a 1. Judgment for amount claimed id costs. Same v. Dr Davenport, claim £4. udgment for amount claimed and )sts. M. Hendsrson v, M. Ryan. This as adjourned till next Court day, n the application of Mr Blakiston. Fraserand Co. y. W. Scott, claim £4. fo appearance of defendant. Mr N. IcPhee appeared to prove the claim, udgment for amount claimed and osts. Reardon v. Turner, claim £i 4s. Irs Reardon gave evidence that the laim was for board and lodging. !r Blakiston for plaintiff. Judgment or amount claimed, with costs and olicitor's fee.' Younghusband and Co. v. G. Moss, udgment summons. G. Moss gave ividence that he had been working or Mr Mortensen as a mill band, since the judgment had been given ie had received about £12 from the nill contractor. Was at present layng a tram, but there were only 14 ;bains of it. Had not been able to jay anything out of the £\2 he had received. There was about £% to ;qme to him from the mill. Had a wife and child to keep. Could only offer to pay 10s a month.— W. Slipper was called and Rave evidence of paying £12 to defendant. — Amount bo be paid in five months' by instalments, in default 14 days' imprisonment. 'I. Howe v. J. Fernandez, claim £\, judgment summons. Mr Bamford for plaintiff. Defendant deposed that he had done no work sincß the judgment was given. Had money coming from Air Bates, but according to the latter's statement he was owing Sates money. Had had no money from Bates since the 13th May. — Mr J. Bates gave evidence that defendant had been in bis employ. When defendant left his employ he gave him £]. Did not owe him anything at present. In reply to defendant Mr Bates said he only actually paid defendant £\. Money to bo paid within two months, in default 7 days' imprisonment in Napier gaol. Knight Bros. v. V, Rasmussen, claim £73 2s, sheep and lambs supplied. Mr Bamford for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed, and costs. Badley and Co. v. P. Hemmingsen, claim £14 7s 9d. Mr Blakiston appeared for plaintiff. Mr Bamford for defendant, This was a disputed account. The account had been carried on from Basmusen and Co. to Younghusband and Co. without an actual assignment. The amount of £1 12S 4d, due to Rasmussen and Co., was deducted from the claim, leaving £& 15s sd. Mr Badley gave evidence as to the assignment of the book debts from Younghusband and Co. to Badley and Co. Defendant had admitted the claim to Badley and Co., and offered £1 to square the account. In reply to Mr Bamford, Mr Badley said there had never been any dispute over timber. J. A. Burmester deposed that he had kept the books for Younghusband and Co. for part of the time the account was for. Before himself and Mr Badley defendant admitted the whole amountTo Mr Bamford : In April, 1891, no credit was given in the books for any amount paid by defendant. Did not know a receipt produced ftr January, 1891.— Defendant gave evidence that he had paid moneys to Younghusband and Co. Recognised the receipt ; also two orders produced, which he bad paid to Mr Younghuaband himself. To Mr Blakiston : Did not know who received the money for which a receipt was produced from Younghusband and Co. Mr Knight gave eyidenca to having paid the order on him, which was produced. Mr Elmbranch (?ave evidence to giving defendant an order on Younghusband and Co., in January, 1891, and it had been settled. Plaintiffs were nonsuited for the debt incurred with Rasmussen and Co., and judgment was given for defendant on the rest of the account. E. Dean v. Nira, claim j£lo 5a for splitting shingles. Plaintiff admitted having received stores, grain, etc., from defendant to the value of £6 7s. Mr Djxon interpreted. Judgment for plaintiff for £i 03 2d, with costs, a month being allowed to sattle the account.