MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11191, 13 August 1898, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, August 12. . . ' ' ] (Before Mr E. H.. Carew,' S.M.) j Official Assignee' in the estate of John I M'Lean v. David Mason (Burnside), claim £7 9s ld, on a judgment summons.—Mr Moore appeared for plaintiff, and there being no cvi- j dence of means and ability to pay, the case was dismissed. ... E. J. Bryant v, P. H. Martin.—Claim £11 J 19s, on a judgmentsummons.—Defendant, whe did uot appear, , was .ordered, to pay tho amount claimed with costs by monthly instal- j ments of 40s, in default three weeks' imprison- j ment. , - , , .- -. ' William Mudge . (Port Chalmers),. v. .Ale*.. | Ross.—Claim £8 14s 3d, on a judgment suni : j inons.—Mr Wilkinson appeared for plaintiff, and defendant, who did not appear, was or- { dsred to pay £5 12s 3d still due, with 8s costs, j by, instalments of 30s per month,', in' default 10 days' imprisonment. -T. E. Shiel and Co. v. William Parker (N.E. Valley).—Claim £6 13s 3d, on a judgment summons.—Mr Moore appeared for plaintiff, and offered no evidence—The'case was dismissed. George Esther v. A. B. Mercer and Hector -Mercer, lately .carrying on business under ihu style of Mercer Brothers.—Claim £9, balance due on a promissory note; interest, as ar-' ranged;"'£4;' and valuation fees in connection with a valuation made by plaintiff on .the stock of Mercer Brothers, £17 10s;—total, £30 10s.— Mr Moore appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr MacGregor' "for' the -defendants.—Mr ~ MacGregor raised ,the point that there, was insuf: 'ficient'service,"the summons having only-been sorved on one of the defendants.—His Worship held that plaintiff could proceed as against the defendant served, and Mr MacGregor said that if ho did ho would do so at the risk of proceedings being subsequently taken to set aside judgment if it were obtained.—Plaintiff deposed that the charge he made for valuation was considerably lower than that, which he usually charged.—ln; reply to Mr MacGregor, witness said that he did not know if he owed Mercer Bros, an account for groceries, but be nover agreed to do the. valuation; for the amount of the contra account. Mr Brown,-an accountant, was with him on behalf of the company who were buying the business when witnes3 valued the stock. If Mr Brown had been joaid£B 8s for the same work he had been well paid. Mr Brown was not a valuator, witness claimed to bo a high-class valuator. When the promissory note was dishonoured be received a bill for £44 10s on account from T; K. Harty, which was met. -He did not accept a new bill as full settlement of the account. The original bill for £53 103 vvas ,not given by Hector Mercer to him as an • accommodation bill to relieve his banking account.— 3 ames Samson also gave evidence. He stated that the charges of plaintiff for valuing the stock were fair.—The case was then adjourned till Wednesday next. Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs, was given in each of the following cases:—P. J. Bellett (hotelkeeper, South Dunedin) v. Richard Palmer (Meadowbank), claim £13 on account stated between plaintiff and'defendant, for which sum defendant. gave plaintiff an lOU (Mr Moore appeared for plaintiff); New Zealand Co-operativp ■ Company, Lipited (for. whom Mr James appeared). v. Thomas Burton. (Houipapa), claim .£2 10s 63, calls due on sbares; same v. M. S...Bennett (Owaka), claim £12,12s 9d, calls due on shares;. same v. David. Cook (Ratanui), claim £10 2s 2d, calls due on shares; same v. Geo. Page (Houipapa), claim £10 2s 2d, calls due on shares; Ro3s and Glendining v. Henry Bezzant (Timaru), claim £1 Is sd, good 3 supplied; Henry Guthrie, v. Henry Beard, claim 6s, balance of account due. 1 — :