MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16452, 31 January 1917, Page 12

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

UNDEFENDED CASES.

Judgment for plaintiff, by default, for the amount claimed, and costa, was given by j Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday in the following undefended cases :—Smith and Caughey, Ltd., v. R. T. Jamieson, Huntly, £8 12s 7d; Johnston and Noble v. Christopher 0. Buckton and another, I)argnville, £17 19s 2d ; C. J. Brown v. Alfred Caracross, Eltham, £15 6s 2d; H. Harnett v. J. Btockley, Otahuhu, £2 la 9d; James Harrison v. John Tobin, Auckland, £5 7s; Ross and Company v. W. F. Q. Scott, Foxton, £52 14s Id; J. Gilbert v. W. F v G. Scott, Foxton, £2 16s 6d ; Auckland Glass Company, Ltd., v. H. J. Rollinson, Pukekohe, £14 7s lOd; W. Buchanan, Ltd., v. Walter Q. Fountain, Epsom, £3 14s 7d; Holland and Gillett, Ltd., v. Matthew Henderson, Onehunga, £34 Is 6dj W. Cunningham v. G. Mitchell, Paeroa, £3 Is 7d; F. W. Robinson v. C. Lovett, Frankton Junction, 16s 6d; Milne and Choyce, Ltd., v. A. Stone, Hamilton, £4 Os 4d; Henry S. Booker v. M. Collier, Tokomaru Bay £5 12s lOd; Treasury Publishing Company, Ltd., v. M. • Cronin, Auckland, £2 ss; same v. K. Pace, Auckland, £25»; same v. It J. Kalka, Auckland, £2 ss; same v. M. Hickey, Newton, £2 ss ; same v. N. C. Roberta, Auckland £2 ss; same.T. E. Ruthberg, Avondale, £2 ss; same v. W. Wakem, Auckland, £2 58 ; same v. N. Lnnny, Auckland-, ss; Sydney Seligman v. I. Corrigan, Auckland, 13s; Amburys, Ltd., v. A. F. Stone, Hamilton, £2 18s 6d; Union Cash Stores v. W. Stansfield, Newton, £5 12s lid; Roope Bros. v. 'W. - Hooker, Parnell, 13s 6d; Thomas Fry v. K. Constant, Rotorua, £5 2s 6d; W. Rodgers v. A. Eketone,TeKuiti,£2s; Whittome, Steven, son and Co., Ltd., v. M. E. Clark, Waian Pa, £3 03 4dy« The Eureka Implement and Machinery Company of New Zealand, Ltd., v. T. Robinson and N. J. W. Brown, Himitangi, £59 16a 8d; Samuel Vaile and Sons, Ltd., v. A. Weatherall, Henderson, £7; same v. H. Twining, Mount Albert, £27 9s! Waitemata Sawmill Co. v. J. Heiti, Te Araroa, £13 is 3d; Lees Bros, v. W. D. Ferguson, Auckland. £2 18s 6d; Dexter and Crozier, v. 0. Sellare, Grey Lynn, £2 16s 4d; G. Mcßride, Ltd., v. A. Kennedy, Mercer, £3 10s; W. Wood v. 0. Moore, Hnnterville, £2 16s 4d; N. Dickey v. J. W. White, Whangarei, £1 18a j London Dairy v. S. Stanaway, sen., Auckland, £1 12s 8d; same v.' F. W. Osborne, Newmarket, £119s 7d ; John Burns and Co., Ltd., v. Stanley Park, Te Kauwhata, £59 5s Id; J. H. Barker and Co., Ltd., v. John Black, Auckland, £40 17s; Theodore Endletsberger v. H. Lees, Auckland, £1 Is; Earl and Kent v. Kararaina Taupaki, Paeroa, £20 19s lOd; Arthur Cleave and Co., Ltd., v. Annie CampbsJl, Rotorua, £2 10 a; same v. Lennard Isherwood, Waipawa, £11 63 8d; Annie C. Taylor, v. John Vincent, Wellington, £12; same v. Alfred Parker, Green Lane, 15s; Phillipps and Impey, Ltd., v. Neil Johnson, or Johnston, Matamata, £145 12s 7d; Hardleys, Ltd., v. Agnes McCabe, Auckland, £28 2s 6d ; Grey and Menzies v. E. Snook, Northcote, £5 17b 4d; Hallenstein Bros. v. M. Martin, Auckland, £2 2s lOd ; John Reid and Co. v. George Halliday, Whanearei, £3 0s 3d ; same v. Robert E. Price, Thames, £13 16s 2d.

BROTHERS AT LAW. brothers were opposed to each othsr in litigation in a case in which Albert W. Dud'son, Birkenhead (Mr. Vallance), claimed £52 10s 8d from Ernest James Dudson, Auckland (Mr. A. E. Skelton), for arrears of purchase-money of the launch Sea Wolf. Plaintiff further claimed the sum of £5 paid by him for insurance premium. Mr. Vallance pointed out that the defendant had, under agreement, consented to pay £200 for the plaintiff's share in tho launch Sea Wolf, by certain monthly instalments. Arrears to the amount claimed were now due.

Mr. Skelton asked for a nonsuit on the ground that defendant had paid more to plaintiff in reduction of tho purchasemoney ihan was necessary. A clause in the agreement made it possible for the plaintiff, besides paying regular monthly instalments, to pay off any amounts at any period in reduction of the £200. Although plaintiff had not paid moneys directly as monthly instalments he had paid sump at different periods which exceeded the amount of the instalments for the term.

Considerable legal argument was heard in reference to clauses in the agreement. The magistrate adjourned the case until May 29. in order to give defendant a chance of paying the arrears, and directed that the insurance claim of £5 be paid forthwith.