GORE.

Mataura Ensign, Volume 15, Issue 1295, 9 June 1893, Page 6

GORE.

Thursday, Bth Joke, 1893. (Before R. 8. Hawkins, E-q\, R.M.) John Ballxntine v Geo. JfrouTston — L 2 Ba. Judgment by default, with costa 6d. G. F. Allen v Hugh Fruser-Lft 15j 6J. Plaioiiff deposed ttitt he agreed to do Certain painting end paper-hanging for d«fendanc for ih« sum of L 5, and afterwards to p?int a porch for 15.-1. He also did come glazing and varnishing, and. supplied some paint to i he defendant. He received L 3 on account, and there wa- a baluLce due of L 3 15i 6d, which defendant hid -everal fines promised to pay, thuugh no ace am had been rendered until a'aout a week b. fc.re proceedings were t<-.keu. in cress-examination by d> fendant. pi in« tiff admitted that there wert- some sm»l faults in hiß work, but they were tnvia. *ud he had agreed to amend hem. Defendant en the other hand said the work was to have been done to the sati faction of the owner, Mr Hay, bufc he objected to the workmanship and kept L 2 off. The porch was to be painted inside and outside, and wa9 only done outside. The glazing was included in the contract for L 5, and witness had nothing to do with the varnishing. It would have cost wittiess L 5 to complete the work properly, but H.»y only kept L 2 off him. His Worship suggesed the csse b ould be aijourned to allow flay to be Bui.pceued,and defendant agreed to this. Adjourned accordingly, Thomas Hewitt v W.Finlay—GUxm cf 63, Mr ttuwier, for plaintiff, .-aid Mr Ne.ive was acting for defencinnt, but h»*d net up. pareutly returned frooi Wiikau ami hud iiqk telephoned as he might, nave done. JL'ueie was some me tion of au npplu;>ition for a ndjourumaut, but counsel «;bj>.<.t:fd sm she muount invoive-J v>as : m.:!l t»r.,; thnre was really uo deience. Thomas Hewi t su. cha 1 lai; ra ea defen'ant, who held tte stitil.sadj mm* hia hotel, was pustititl tor room, »ua witn ••8 alteied a large staJl »n-' S'.uiv room ibto a loose box *t an exp-nse ot 15s, D<l nil>nt w»s to uae the loose b . xa< >t tn«k hi- us •»■ chfirges an<» &liow vmuees <■ r asoti«>le thing. Detendauc had us^d a tw» nigiu'd running and hail been paid fur 1 , an t h»d kept the key for some fuur moutb*), A«k<*'i tor payment ana tilled .et ndoiit, wno mid he >vould owe the auiouut. Judgment tor the «m >unt a»i ! costs 6s, & P F. Monaghan v — MoLeery — Ciaim : »f L 25. ' .£ Mr Neave for pla ntiff <tnd 41* ,I) Popp lwell for defenaaut. Aojourued until nex Court day pn tho application of Air Neav« ; costs to defendant LL 13. A J. Pease v A. Arnold— Claim of L7O 3s id on a dishonored p oinissary note. Mr Neave for pi .iutiff. Judgment by default, with coßts of Court L 2 11s and solicitor's fee L 8 3s. W. Johnston v C. Grant -Claim of L 2 Bs, value of .'. S.edge couveiud by defendant lv his own use. Mr Neave for plaintiff aLd • r Fletcher for defendant. The case for the plaintiff, as borne oat by the evidence of W. Jo.inston and F. Kobins, was that plaiutifE ..ad a fledge worth L 2 ss, whic*i he had Itft in the Uroyiton bush, and that Kobins who was working for Grant, by his directions took and uaed the Biedge , In this work it was considerably dam ged, and Grant refused t© repair or piy for i>.. Defendant on the other hand denied telling Kobins to take it, -indsul lii* con tract with Robins whs to haul stak s oiu oi the buali at so much per 100, Robins to find buslocks and slcdgo or waggon. John flelher said the usut-1 practice was for tho contractor to find team and sledge. Plaintiff was naobuitcd with L.{ l» solicitor's fee to defendant, MAINTENANCE CASfI. Win. Hannah v F. MoGmvan-^Chntje of failing to provide sufficieut support for hia wife, Sarah Hannah McGowan, from tho 25th March, 1893. Mr Fletcher tor complainant and Messrs Neave and Poppelwell for defendant. ill Fletcher said this was one of -those painful cases that occasionally occur and was of no public interest. He would like the public to retire, though the door of the Uouitiouse must be left open. His Worship coald no< order the public to leavj the Court. He must leave it to their own discretion. Mr Fletcher than opened tha case, stating that MS ftfcljowaa was in such a st+te ofi health **a to ha unable to nurse her four children, attend to her domestic duties, look, after the farm and milk four ur six cows every day. Her mediual attendant had advised rest and quietuess and she had left her hußbanu's house to get that. Ber husband had sinco parted wvh hia haus? (E£r Poppelwell : His lease expired a fortnight ago and be had to give 15 up), and had now no house to take nis wife to. Evidence was given by W. Hannah, a brother of Mrs McGrowan, Mva McGowan, who doubted if ehe would return to her husband, Dr Copland 4 George Haanah and Peter Mortimer, Mr Neave submitted there was no case to answer, and after aigument, his Worship upheld this contention aud dismissed the case without prejudice, The Court aajouraed until 10 o'clook this morning.