(Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14918, 17 March 1914, Page 3

(Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES.

Judgment by default was entered by plaintiff's in the following civil cases: — Henry Berry and Co. v. John P. R Jordan, 18s Sri; same v. William Edwards. £3 Os; same v. Charles H. Young, £34 7s 0d : W. B. Scott v. S. Clnrke, £1 17s lOdj Andrew Lees v. Douglas Jones, £2 0s 6J : Dainties Ltd. v Hogg Bros., £30 Is: H. J. Harbison v R, AVaklin. £o O, 3d: E. L. Evans and Co. v. W. Pine, £-5. REPAIRS TO A CAR. (Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) Frederick Kibblewhite (Mr Ward) claimed from Dr. T. Paget (Mr A. T. Donnelly) tho sum of £3 lis 7d. repairs to a motor-car. There was a counter-claim for £7 15s, being damages alleged to have been done by tho plaintiff to the gear-box of defendant's car. Counsel for plaintiff 6aid that Dr. Paget had been touring Canterbury a year ago, when.his car broke-down. The car was taken to Kibblewhite's garage, and they were given four days in which to do a job which really required a fortnight's work. When the account was sent in the doctor took exception to certain amounts, and entered his counter claim. Judgment was for the amount paid into Court (£2o>, and £8 lis 7d. the amount of the claim. Tho counterclaim was disallowed. Costs were allowed plaintiff on the claim. METAL CEILINGS. The case in which James Henry Candy (Mr Wright) sued Briscoe and Co., "Ltd. (Mr G. Harper) in respect of alleged unsatisfactory metal ceilings supplied by the defendant firm, was further adjourned to a date to be fixed by the parties. SERVICES RENDERED. , Marjorie Mary Penberthy CMr Turner) claimed from Edward Holden (Mr Spratt) £9 12s for services rendered. Mr Turner said that remuneration had not been fixed beforehand, and the parties had been unable to come to terms. He would leave to the Magistrate to assess what would be a fair consideration. " Plaintiff said she was a typist, and did certain work for defendant for fifteen months. For seven weeks' work she received £1. Afterwards, when defendant was in Australia, plaintiff continued to do certain work—typing letters, posting, and doing up parcelsafter hours. Counsel for the defence contended that the work was not highly responsible work, and should only have occupied three hours a week of plaintiff's time. He thought payment at the rate of £1 for every seven weeks was fair remuneration. "It seems to mc," said the Magistrate, "that this is just an attempt on the part of defendant to get services, valuable and honest, apparently, at as low a rate as possible." He gave judgment for plantiff for £7 os. plus £2 10s paid into Court,