MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14144, 20 August 1909, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

UNDEFENDED CASES.

At the- Magistrate's Court yesterday Mr. C. 0. Kettle, S.M., entered judgment for plaintiffs with costs in each of the following un- ! defended : —Kempt-home, Prosser, and Co. v. R. O'Donnel (Tongaporutu), £2 15s 9d; J. J. Craig, Limited, v. Heywood Armstrong (Kawhia), £22; J. Valentine v. J. G. Pepper. £4 7s 4d; Robertson Brothers v. H. Mahood (Cambridge), £15 18s lid; J. N. Heape v. J. E. Job (Komata), £1 6s Bd; Geo. Mcßride v. A. Davidson, £3 Os 6d; Kauri Timber Company v. James Young (Arapohue).' £5 6s; Cecil Cooke v. Mrs. F. McLiver, £2 8s 6d: M. Abrahams and Co. v. V. Matulovich (Mangawhare), £1 7s 6d;. Cashmoro Brothers v. W. E. Morgan (Kawhia), £14 lis 3d; D.S.C. v. A. J. Porteous (R&hotu), £9 13s; H. M. Smeaton, Limited, v. C. P. Winklcman (Taneatua), £2 14s 4d; A. and T. Burt, Limited, v. E. Samuel (Pn-onga North). £9.in s 9cl; F. W. Smith and Co. v. T. Carlo Smith (Tauranga), £*> 7s 2d; D.S.C. v. A. Bromwieh (Paeroa), £1 4s 6d: G. H. Baker and Co. v. F. Julian(lnglewood), £4 Os 9d; F. J. Mollard v. G. J. Pepper, £5 12s Id; Jane Johnston v. James Stewart, £10 Os 6d;'.- Donald and Edenborough v. Kee Sue (Eltham), £3 4s lid; Hill and Plummer v. Mrs. M. A. James (Hamilton), £54 lis 2d; same v. same, £7 19s 6d; W. Smith v. J. Harris, £1 is 3d; Skelton, Frostick and Co., Limited, v. F. B. Zinke, £70 9s 3d; Smith and Caughey v. Jonathan Job (Komata). £8 12a 3d W. Sloan v. J. W. Proctor, £1 3s 8d; Dr. A. 0. Purchas v. W. F. J. Hayter (Frankton), £6 3s; A. E. Moginie and Co. v. J. S. C. Warburton (Timaru), £5 10s lid: Hill and Plummer v. Geo. Braund (New Plymonth), £2 5s 2d; Potter, Fraser, and Co. v. F. C. Bennett (Inglewood), £2 18s 6d; Mrs. R. Sainsbury (Auckland) v. John Taylor (settler, Te Kuiti), £7 14s. v

A BUILDER'S CLAIM. Judgment was given in the cage A. J. Butterworth. builder, v. Arthur O. Jones, a jclaim for £75. Plaintiff undertook to build a house for defendant., the contract price being £325. The builder claimed £92 for extras, and of this £17 was admitted. Defendant counter-claimed £22 for defective work. The magistrate disallowed £67 15s on the claim, and gave judgment for £5 16a 6d on the counter-claim. Ho consented to hear counsel on the question of costs in chambers if they could not agree. A GUMDIGGING OPTION. The monetary transactions of two gumdiggers were concerned _in the claim made bv Luka Babich, of Puni. against Iliga Mandich. for £7 4s 4d. Mr. Prenden?ast appeared for plaintiff, and Dr. Bamford for defendant. . "■■'*'». Plaintiff said that on April 17, 1907, the sum of £60 was paid to J. Henry for the right" to dig gum on his property at Drury. Nine' men were concerned in the option, and defendant was one. Plaintiff paid the amount claimed as defendant's share of the lease. Plaintiff also claimed £1. which he alleged he hod lent defendant at Drury. ,The defence set wo that if the money was owing, which was denied, it was owing not to plaintiff, but his brother. A counter-claim was advanced against the loan. , The case was adjourned.

UNSUCCESSFUL CLAIM. In the case in which A. Leith, a coachbuilder," sued G. Phillia, of Jermyn-streefc, for £2 19s, for work done, the magistrate gave judgment for the defendant with costs, the defendant the magistrate that he had paid for the services rendered.