Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


MAGISTRATE'S OODRT. (Before E. W. Burton, Esq., S.M.) Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in the following actions:—J. Wilkic, and Co. v. J. Travis (of Alexandra!, stationery, £1 and costs (lis;: Jas. Wallace v. 'David Inncs Barron (of Auckland), drapery, £6 13s 7d and costs (£1 5s 6d); Chas. John Thorn v. Reginald V. Kellv, on account stated, £9 3s and costs (£*l 4s 6d); J. T. Browne and Co. v. Christopher Munro (ofjChristchurch), on account stated, 8s 3d and costs (ss); H. Wise and Co. v. Herbert S. Tunnicliffo (of Nelson), advertising, £1 and costs (lis); Wilson and Umbers v. Joseph E. M'Nulty, work done, 15s and costs (ss); A, and J. M'Farlane v. Edwin John Jones (of Wellington), balance due on motor evele, £ls and costs (£1 10s 6d); A. E."Usherwood and Co. v. John Marck3 (of Mahenc), costs in action for goods (20s) : N. Reed and Co. v. R. Black (of Christchurch), goods, £1 18s 6d and costs (ss); Coopers Ltd. v. J. Andrews (of Omakau). work done, £l4 14s and costs (£1 10s 6d); W. A. Scott v. Jas. Bradshaw (of Edendale), goods sold, £l3 Is 6d and costs (£1 12s 6d); John Chambers and Son Ltd. v. Robert Crump (of Hororata), goods sold, £l4 13s 9d and coats (£1 13s 6d); W. Gregg and Co., Ltd. v David J. Bishopp (of Fairlio), goods and on dishonored cheque, £4 9s and costs (10s): H. Wise and Co., Ltd. v. Horace Oarstin (of To Awamutu), advertising, £5 and costs (£1 8s 6d. Agnes Carline (Mr Moore) v. Robert Fisher. Claim £3 7s 6d on judgment summons. Defendant did not appear, and was ordered to pay the sum forthwith and costs (ss), in default threo days' imprisonment. A. and J. M'Farlane (Mr A. C. Smith) v. James Wilkinson, of Houipapa, (Mr D. D. Macdonald). Claim £3l lbs 2d for goods sold and delivered. This case was one adjourned from last week. —It appeared that until the death of defendant's wife all accounts had been sent to her, and also that after her death the account was first put in against the wife's estate. The defence was that tho boarding establishment (for which the goods were obtained) was run by the wife,, and that defendant worked away from the place, and had nothing whatever to do with the procuring of the goods.—The case was proceeding at 3 p.m.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS-TO-DAY, Evening Star, Issue 15704, 19 January 1915

Word Count

THE COURTS-TO-DAY Evening Star, Issue 15704, 19 January 1915