THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 11169, 19 February 1900, Page 2

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

SUPitEr.IE COURT -DIVORCE AND SI TKIKOMAL. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) Elizabeth Kellett, petitioner t. Thomas Kellett. respondent.—Motion for decree absolute —ill- Adams appeared for petitioner, and there was no appearance of the other side.- -i'r Ad«m.s applied to have the decree nisi made ah>o!r.te. and (under section 21 of the Act of 1898) that an order be made for the petitioner to have the custody of the children. Learned counsel mentioned that an affidavit of search had been filed, and that on the hearing of the case before Mr Justice Pennefather the Judge had expressed the opinion that the respondent was unfit to have the custody of the children.—Decree made absolute, petitioner to have the custody of the children. ' MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before C. C. Graham, Esq., S.M.) In the following undefended cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default for amounts claimed. w:j.h costs: —E. Soilness (for whom Mr J. White appeared! v. William Xicol (Inyercargill). claim £lO 12s lid. on a dishonored provriissoi-v note and c;ood.s supplied (costs, £l. 15s'6d); same'v. H. W. Turpm (Rangiora.), claim £ll 17s Bd, on n dishonored promissory note (cos's, £1 15s 6d) ; A. Beaver anil Co (for whom Mr White for Dr Milne appeared) v. J. ifJa.gerfy (Winton), claim £6 3s 3d, for goods supplied (costs, Us) : A. J. Buss (for whom Mr Hanlou appeared) v. I'/hvard dlarrop, claim 16s on. tor good-: supplied (costs. 6s). P. d. Bciltu. v. David Watt.—Claim, £•> 17< 6d, for cash lent, and beer and whis'kv provided. Plain tiff did not appear.—Mr Hanlon, for the defendant, apulied to have the case struck out.—This was done, and defendant, allowed £1 Is coecs. Frederick Broad v. Burnett and Grant.— Claim, £96 9s. Mr Hanlon aupearcd for the ph.nufT and Mr f-'im for defendants.— The. statement of claim was made up as follows :- - -1 66 weeks at £3 per week, £468 : by cash received, £390 ; balance. £7B ; and in addition. 246 hours' overtime at Is 6d per hour. £l3 9s ; i.on.J, £96 9s.—Mr Hanlon said that the plaintiff was engager! by <j (! . fenda.nts in December, 1895. In* February. 1896. an agreement was entered into between the two parties, whereby it was arranged that defendant was to receive 50s a. week If he stopped in their employ until December. 1896. he. was to receive a,n extra 10s a week. This extra was paid up to that date, but not since. That wa.s the amount, with the overtime, tha-t, plaintiff sued for. It could not be contended that the extra 10s hj. week was only to run for the six months tip to December. J896. The plaintiff thought the amount, wa.s running up to his credit, nnd. until they had a. dispute last December', ;i was never questioned.—The plaintiff having given evidence, Mr Sim said the defence was that there, had been a new verbal agreement made, under which the arrangements were totally altered.-The- defendant gave his version of the affair, and His Worship gave, jnd-ment for lh> plaintiff for £5 19s and cosfsf £] 19s), holding that as the plaint:f? had not brought forward the £26 which hj said was due to him every year on his yearly ha.lancc sheets it was'nr'ohable that the defendants story wa.s the correct one.