THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 14687, 3 October 1911, Page 4

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before H. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M.) Judgment by default was given for the plaintiffs in the following rases:— F W. Ansell (Mr Moore) v. Geo. M. and Annie C. Drvdon. goods. £39 19s 9d and costs (£2 ]:''■•-) ; Tarrttu Coal Companv (Mr Larnaoh) v. John A. Finn and l.lobt. V\'eir (of Ralclutha), coal, £U> 3s 2d and costs (£1 13k 6d); A. Murdoch end t'o. (Mr Moore) v. Wilson ond Co. (of Ir.v-rcaii'iH). goods, £l-1 Is !)<! mid costs < -'I 10s (id); Isabella M-Keriil-:- 'Mr Moore) v. B. iJovd (,-| V>'/'liii!-"-<>;!'/, on account stated, t-"> i-iiid -'nsfi (£l. 0s Od) ; So!:>r<:n;ir; (Mr Moore) v Walter "Vr;\r:v (of New Brighton), paint :•.!;-rdiod. '-.'l l f '' ; "'"d r '"d ro::ts <os) ; ■]'«','■::! C-ie.l ('o:-:].:i::y '.Mr Larnach) v. Vnr.'ii : . Boy--:- (r.f ('t-.'lri:!::'). coal, £6 ',;.. :■] r. ■•; .-./:-1.- (-.J lis '-M) ;J. anil J. A: ;:,',;■ ;.i;v Mok") v. Andrew Nichol- = :v: (.if 'v.i'iii--':, -.i, on arcount stated, L. '. ""■ ;,! ):(j i .»:-;'s iHI > ; .s.tnic v. John .!. i • ! 'r: ;■::!" i, poods, £2 : , ; Mid com.-; •'!'">■): S.r.Miel Jarris .;;.- !; j;i v. .'ar.icr, O'Dor-noil, cloth- ':;■•■ J '■'} "I 1 "'-, r.f.d costs (Kir,); same v. T-V.'iick WcV>, £3 r.nd costs (lis); J. !;.a:i and cnoUicr (.Mr W. C. Mac'•'v;";cr) v. IVier !ir.rrin,2,iou (of Clyde), i;i■ ol <■.-;■•.-! :;>.f.-;. i:; reject of employ-]-.-nt of idaintiii' :-•:.! his wife. £l4 3s ;::::! u"-.< ts (£3 !).,). J comment- .Summons. William Cuttle .Mr Jr.."in) v. Jaincs Fitzpatricli, claim £2 17s 6d. Defendant did not appear, and was ordered to pay forthwith the sum (due and costs (ss), in default three days' imprisonment. A Painting Contract.—James Wren. and Co. (Mr \Y. D. Stewart) v. James Motion (Mr A.'C. H anion), claim £8 13s for the painting of a vinerj at Si. Clair. Just after the painting was done (before it was complete, according to defendant) the vinery was destroyed by fire. Defendant's contention was that there we.re_ to bo three coats of white lead and oil paint, and that only two had been put on, and tho back of the vinery not done, wherefore tho contract was not complete. Plaintiff's evidence, on the other hand, wan that three coats had been given, and that the back was left untouched by reason of instrnciion_ from defendant. The case was proceeding at 3 p.m.