S.M COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume LXIV, Issue 280, 4 December 1907, Page 5

S.M COURT.

TUESDAY.

(Before Mr Thompson, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES.

Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs, was given in the following cases James Milton Bennett (Mr Guy) v. T. W. Maruman £11 3s 4d, costs £2 Is 6d; Burton Brewery Coy., Ltd. (Mr Inues) v. S. Hickson £16, costs 80s 6d ; W. H. Payne (Mr Cooper) v. G. Richter £3 5s 6d, costs 10s; Emmanuel White (Mr Meatyard) v. Richard Jones £1, costs ss. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Abraham and Williams, (Hankins, Loughnan, aud Lockhart Fitzlierbert) v. Charles Pearson; order made to pay £6 Ids lOd forthwith in default, seven days' iuprisonment at Napier. A GRAZING DISPUTE.

W. J. Cornford (Mr Loughuan) v. W. Hodgson (Mr Cooper), a claim for £7 18s 3d, for the grazing of two horses from October Ist, 1902, to June 30th, 1903, nine months, at Is per week per horse, and of two horses from Jane 81st, 1903, to Deember 81st oft he same year at Is per week, and for one horse from May B'st, 1905, to June 3rd, 1906 a tls 6d p r week. The plaintiff stated that t!;o amount due in 1903 was about £12 Bs. Twelve pounds had been paid by the defendant, this practically absolving him from debt. An arrangement had since been made for the plaintiff to break on 6 of the horses in. No written agreement was oome to but defendant considered that plaintiff had been amply paid by the work he got out of the horse. Judgment was given for the defendant. A DISPUTED ORDER. John Prentice (Mr Cooper) v. D. and T. O'Reilly (Mr Innes), a claim to recover from the defendant the sum of £50 for goods supplied. Evidence was given by the two parties and also by Chas. Moore who said he was present st Prentice's yards, Terrace End, when O'Reilly practically gave an order to Prentice for some pipes, etc. This statement O'Reilly absolutely denied, saying he had given no order at all for goods. His Worship reserved his decision. LIGHT ON RAUMAI. Frederick Simonds Cory (Mr Loughnau) v. Andrew Jack (Mr Innes), a claim to recover from the defendant the sum of £20 for damages for breach of contract and return of money paid. Evidence was given by Mr Brown in charge of the Kaumai creamery that patent lighting machinery has been installed at the Raumai Hotel by Andrew Jack and Sons. Its working was far from satisfactory; sometimes it went out several times in a single evening. An evening never passed but it went out once or twice.

His Worship could not see that there was any total failure of consideration. Plaintiff was nonsuited for breach of warranty and judgment was given In the counterclaim in'favor of the counter-claim-ant for £-13 2s 2d, and £3 10s costs.