CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 335, 23 October 1908, Page 4

CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) . UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiff by default of defendant.. was entered in the following civil cases Charles Joseph Shiel, trading as C. J. Shiel and Co., v. William Braniff, £3 Is. 6d., costs £1; William Campbell v. William F. M'Leod, £40 3s. 10d., costs £2 175.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., as ■ assignee,' and Briscoe and Co., Ltd., as assignor, v. Mrs. Elizabeth Ilea, £4 9s. 6d., costs 135.; Richard Duignan v. J. P. Shipton, £4 19s. Gel., 'costs 55.; Nelson, Moate and Co., v. Charles Williams, £19 155., costs £1 10s. 6d.; G. Hardt and Co., Ltd., v. Thomas M'Carthy, £9 os. Id., costs £1 3s. 6d.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., assignee, and E. W. Mills and Co., Ltd., assignor, v. Arthur W. Jones, £08 13s. 5d., costs £3 19s.

No orders were mado in the following judgment summons oases:—Rouse and Hurrell, Ltd., v. Samuel Goode, a debt of £9 125.; " New Zealand Times" Co. v. William John Rickman, a debt of £1 18s. 3d. AN ELECTRIC LIGHT INSTALLATION. William M'Goldrick' (Mr. 'Fitzgibbon) sued C. J. Shiel and Co.-nnd -Thomas Ballinger and Co., Ltd. (Air. von Haast), for £10 as damages for alleged unskilful workmanship in connection with tho installation of electric light in plaintiff's house at Hataitai. Plaintiff alleged that -tho. material used in wiring the house: was Ymsuitalilo for tho purpose, and, further; that the workmanship put in was unskilful and had. Ho said that in consequencdXbf this ho had been put to considerable expense in having the wire overhauled, and geherally' in having the defendants' work repaired so- as to enable the installation of light- to proceed. It was argued for tho defence that with the exception of the junction box and somo bends, for which defendant paid lis. into Court, the work was well and faithfully done. Although the work was done in May, 1907, no complaint was received until June, 190S, after a new set of electric lighting regulations had been brought, into force. After hearing evidence at length, his Worship gayo judgment for plaintiff for the amount paid into Court (lis.)., Defendant was allowed £1 13s. cost-s.