RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5372, 3 May 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, May 2. (Before H, Eyre Kenny, Esq., R.M.; HABKIS V. VERNON. This was a claim of £8 83 for work alleged to be performed by plaintiff for deX jfendant. It was originally heard on the " 18th ult. before R. Stuart, Esq., R.M., and was by him referred to arbitration. The arbitrator having awarded the sum oj'-df- £3 3s to plaintiff, asked that his Wor- , ship, give judgment for that amount. - ; -° Judgment was therefore given for plaintiff for £3 3s, with costs £1 13s. R. NBAGLB V. JOSEPH PEICE. This was a claim of £2 5s for goods ■'supplied;'* "~ ~ " Mr Macdonald, on behalf of defendant, who resides in Poverty Bay, asked that the case be adjourned for a fortnight, which was granted. " RUDDOCK AND FRYER V. TRIGGE. This was a cjaim for £2 Is 5d alleged to be due to plainfrftV .-.-v . . . i^. i; Mr Macdonald was for plaintiff; Mr Lascelles for defendant. _ . _ It appeared,, from the . evidence of the defendant, wHb r is'a;road contractor, that he had never briiered the goods for which he was charged 1 . :J lS.e -had- been in the habit of deatin'g -with the -old firm of Boylanand Co., but stated that he had never had any ihusiness trapaactipns whatever with Me^rs.', Ruddock., and. Fryer. He had instructed Wells, the blacksmith, to make him a pug-mill. Wells had gone to Ruddock and Fryer's to purchase the — necessary-articles for the work, using his (Trigge's) name. He had seen an account of Wells' bankruptcy in the papers ; ni ; he" thought the money he was sued for be£jlonge&to Wells' creditors, not to Ruddock and Fryer. He had never authossrisedCanyone' to get the goods in his name. Harry Sherwood Ruddock gave evidence to the effect that the firm of Ruddock and Fryer, ironmongers, of which he was a member, was formerly associated with Mr Boylah, under the title of Boylan and C 0. ,. No-goods were ever supplied to the^fefendant except those now sued for. „, (Ailetter from Mr Trigge was here put in, E identified, and marked A. The letter was addressed, to Boylan and Co., and dated May,' 1&77. It was to the effect that he expected Boon to be in a position to pay a claim referred to therein.) This letter was received ,by Boylan and 00. in the regular course of business. The prices sdohajgedr ior , the goods were fair and reasonable. His Worship said he should nonsuit the plaintiff, as it had not been proved that •i-jJtKe Jg66ds in question had been ordered by defendant. Plaintiff to pay costs, £4 10s. » :■. " ■ •'VV-i'j .. .Li- RBDWARD V. B. FRANKLIN. Claim for £5 3s lOd for goods supplied. Defendant- "did not appear, and judgment v/W " iSliY®^ !* or , '^Mount claimed, and 'cogis^., ■'.;" .....' .. ••' .. . > ?rj, .-,,.. .NE581T V. PAORA KAIWHATTJ. •rrun.JQlaim of -£4:.< da, wages. Mr LasceUes for plaintiff. Judgment by. default for ilorfche'iamount claimed, and 49s costs. itiui'.; \<\U: > i KITTO V. FARRELI. • jjiiu!ij u( jg men t' summons. The amount of u 'tne. claim' was £4 10s, which with costß 'to £6' 2a Bd. Defendant was "'examined as to his' means. He said that n 'he" kept- a/: store, but that he had been ,„, paying otHer debts. He was willing to '* opay0 pay, but was not in a position to pay now. ,'.; JJis,, Worship allowed one week for the settlement of the claim.