MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17067, 27 July 1917, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thursday, J -rax 26. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases: Johnston Sons, and 00. v. George Alfred Perry (Lower Hutt), claim 10s 6d, for balance n S. for books supplied (costs 6s); same v. William H. Ekland (Waihi), claim £1 12s, balance owing for books supplied (costs ss); same v Ernest Melton, claim £3 3s, balance owing f or books supplied (costs 10s); same v. .Mary Oldham (Otaki), claim £1 2s balance owing on books supplied (costs 6s) • v . James Kyle (Napier South), dainj 6 I ,' foJL applied (costs 12s); same v. John Wilbam Allan (Inglewood), claim for books supplied (costs 10a); same y. lhomas Andrews (Wellington), claim £3 for books suppaed (costs 12s); same v .Henry Arthur Avery (Pahiatua), claim £2 £, for books supplied (costs 10s); same v iidward Liston (Ohakune), claim £2 5s for books supplied (costs 10s); same v. Duncan Alexander Cook (Wellington), claim £L balance owing on books supplied (costs 7s) • same v Henry William a Goodwin Hawera), claim £4 4s, for books supplied (costs 103); same v. Pryor Gilbert (Masterton), claim £1 Is, balance owing on books supplied (costs ss); same v. John Oxford Taihape), claim £2 2s, for books snpplied (costs 10s); same v. Henry Patterson (New Plymouth), claim £2 'ss, for books supplied (costs 10s); same v. George Seaman Goodwin (Hawera); claim £2 ss, for goods eunphed (costs 10s); samo t. Stanley George Rayton (Taihape), claim £2 2s, for books supplied (costs 8s); same v. Ernest Charles Kivel (Taihape), claim £2 2s, for books ™? P hed jF° sis same v. Bateman I nomas Misson (Taihape), claim £2 2s for books supplied (costs 10s); A. Clark v. S. (Man claim £1 12s sd, on account etated (costs ss); H. Wise and Co. v. R. U Harden (Masterton), claim £1, f or advertisin? (costs ss); same v. Robert J. Lyttle (OluT- i ?une) claim 10s, for advertising (costs SsV; Aubery Elliott Wright v. Daniel Bell (Riveredale), claim 10s 6d, money due (costs 18s); Stone, Son, and Co. v W A I p'Oridant claim £1 17s 6d, for printing costs ss); John Edward Butler v. jf Nixon (Kelso, claim £15 Os 9d. for goods supplied (costs £1 13s 6d); Laura Ma Smith .v. Robert J. Norman, jun., cjaim £26 4s 2d, money lent (costs £2 14s); H. H Mitchellv. G. T. Willis (Tapanui), claim £47 I *!7 m ? ne Z» du L On ajromissory note 1 (costs £3 lls 6d); Stone, Son, and Co v Delia Vette (Invercargill), claim £3 10s ' for advertising (costs 10 3 ); Waters, Ritchie,' and i- T :™n Hl ?! h c ? homas Stodart (Owaka), f 4 9 t ] \ T> - LG J - v - Fmla y M claim ?^ii d ' balance due on a former account (costs 17s); F. M'Keown and Co. v. Robert J. Norman, jun. claim £4 3s 3d, for goods supplied (costs 10b; Gordon and Gotoh v. A E. Smith, claim £2 15s 6d, for goods supplied (costs 10s). b A Defended Oase.—Tho Dominion Garage Mot (Mr Wood) med John Wellman (Mr A. O. Smith) for £19 17s 4d for repairs to a motor cycle.—Mr Smith admitted £6 8s Id of the claim, but objected to tho charge of £13 9s 3d, for the time taken by mechanics.— Thomas E. Shiel (manager of the plaintiff company's garase) S. Holnifis (an improver in plaintifPs shop), Wilbam T. Burt (another improver), and R. S. gavl endenco as to the amount of work done and the time occupied (65£ hours).—For the' defence # Thomas Charles Lawson (motor meohamc) rave evidence that, in his opinion, the work done should not have occimiVd , *? 1 12 *? 13 hours.-Findlay 1 1 ( Z aotOT mechan; c) stated that it should not hava tal«m more than U$ hoitrs to do tho work.—Herbert Edmund Davidson expressed the opinion that tho repairs should not have cost more than £s—The MagKtrate gave judgment for £12 8s Id — Mr Smith asked for witnesses' e.Tpense s :_ The Magistrate: Judgment is given against yon. Had yon paid the amount admitted into court yon would hnvo been entitled to witnesses' exponsos. The Maaistratc s.-yd tho costs would be confined to £1 Is (solici tor's foo) and £1 (court costs).