THE COURTS-TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 14525, 29 November 1910, Page 4

THE COURTS-TO-DAY

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before H. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M.) Judgment by default went for the plaintiffs in tho following cases:—lrvine and Stevenson (Mr W. D. Stewart) v. John Beirno (of Marion), on a p.n. £6 Is 6d, and costs (£1 8s od); Emma Pago (Mr Hawkins) v. George M'Leod {of Roxburgh), arrears under an agreement for maintenance, £3 15s, and costs (12s); George T. K. Mackenzie (Mr Moore) v. Henry Hams (of Lower Shotovor), goods, £3 7u 6d. and costs (15s); Millar's West Australian Hardwoods Co. (Mr Statbwn) v. the Island Basin Dredging Co. (of Alexandra), goods, £lO 16s 9d, and costs (£1 10s 6d) ; J-> Densem (Mr B. S. Irwin) v. A. M. Paterson, jnn., goods, £2 7s 6d, and costs (10s); same v. James Garrick. goods, £3, and costs (10s); Hcndai Lar.ka Tea Co. (Mr Moore) v. Henry Miles (of Waimate), on an account stated, £1 7s 6d, and costs (6s) ; Reilly, Scott, and Gill (Mr Statham) v. Leah Myers (of Christehurch), goods, £23 13s 6d, 'and casts (£2 14s); Emanuel Solomons (Mr Moore) v. Jolm Francis Bryant (of Grevmouth), goods, £5 126 3d, and costs (£1 3s 6d).—ln the ca.se of Robert J. M'Keeman v. Robert Collision, a claim foi 10s 6d for board and lodging, judgment went for defendant. Judgment Summonses.—-B. S. Irwin v. William 11. J. Hunt, claim £1 10s, fo? services rendered.—Defendant did not appear, and was ordered to pay tho sum due forthwith and costs (ss), in default three davs' imprisonment. Irv?in and Irwin v. "Robert Baskett, claim £4 18s Bd, for services rendered. —Defendant did not appear, and was ordered to pay tho sum, with costs (6s 6d), forthwith, in default seven days' imprisonment. James Barr v. Andrew Ingram, claim, 15s, for money lent.— Defendant, not appearing, was ordered to pay tho sum forthwith and costs (ss), in default three days' imprisonment. A Promissory Note 'Transaction. —Scoullar and Clnsholm (Mr John MacGregor) v. Frederick C. Evans (Mr C. N. Scurr). claim, £l4 2s 7d, for goods supplied.— This case.had been hoard on a previous com I day. The defence was that the claim had been satisfied by a promissory note given on behalf of defendant by William Miller to the plaintiff. The defence alleged that this promissory note, which was not duo until December' 4, was accepted by the plaintiffs as satisfaction of defendant's debt, and in proof of this it was urge l ! that interest on the original amount had been charged under the three months' hill given by .Miller, and further that a receipt had been pasted by plaintiffs to defendant Evans for Miller's promissory note. The further point was raised that even if it wero held that Evans was still liable for this debt, then the plaint ill's were estopped from recovering by reason of the fact that thev had given Miller time. Tho points l-aiiied were: (1) Novation ((substitution of one contract for another), and (2) estoppel; or. in other words, that plaintiffs were barred from taking proceedings by their own action.—Mr Widdowson, in giving jiidsrmenl, said that, assuming that Evans had not been released, plaintiffs must, in his opinion, bo nonsuited on tho ground lliat- if any value was to be given to tho p.n. it must ho given for valuable consideration, and the valuable consideration in this case would be time. He considered tho ease of Pears v. Hunter an authority for this proposition, and proceeded to quote it. Since value was given to the p.n., and it vas not due till December 4, plaintiffs must at present bo nonsuited. Costs were allowed defendant. Claim for Advertising.—H. Wise and Co. v. John T. Mereditli (of Gcryldinc), claim, £3 for advertising. Mr W. L. Moore for plaintiffs, and Mr J. 15. Calhn for defendant.—After argument, judgment was entered for defendant, with costs (£3 (Left sitting.)