MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20499, 29 August 1928, Page 13

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, August 28. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.)

Judgment was given by default in the following cases: — John M. Booth v. Mrs A. L. Lockhart (Signal Hill), claim £4 Bs, work done and goods supplied, with costs (£1 17s 6d); Jago, Biggs, Ltd., y. Hope Dick, claim £2, goods supplied, with costs (£1 6s 6d); Laidlaw and Gray v. John Anderson (Port Chalmers), claim £5 15s, goods supplied, with costs (£ll6s 6d)j R. Millis and Son v. W. B. Andrews (Ohai), claim £3 Is 3d, work done and goods supplied, with costs (£1 8s 6d); H. A. Hogg v. A. A. Whiting (Picton), claim £l9 17s IQd, radio apparatus supplied, with costs (£3 9s); Wimpenny Bros. v. W. E. Ramsay, claim £3 14s 9d, work done and goods supplied, with costs (£1 10s 6d); Elizabeth Olson v. Reuben Wells (Enfield), claim £5. board and lodging, with costs .(£1 5s 6d); M'Gregor Bros. v. Eric Davidson, claim £lB 12s 9d, clothing supplied, with costs (£2 15s): G. A. Findlay and Co. v. H. Blakeley (Christchurch), claim £1 Bs, costs in an action; New Zealand Breweries, Ltd. v. H. M'Dougall (Gore), claim 18s 6d, liquor supplied, with costs (8s); Otago Brush Company v. Yin Shepherd (Wellington), claim £4, goods sumjied, with costs (£1 3s Gd); H. H. Sykes v. James Gunning, claim £225, unpaid calls on 500 shares in the Tivoli Tea Rooms, Ltd., with costs (£9 12s 6d); Young Bros. v. Percy C. Child and Sarah Child, claim £8 16s, goods supplied, with costs (£1 19s fid; Hogg and Co. v. Max Winders (Pembroke), claim £4 13s Bd, goods supplied, with costs (£1 3s fid) ; Cooperative Fruitgrowers of Otago v. Elizabeth M. Cameron, claim £5 10s 4d, goods supplied, with costs (fills fid); J. Lindsay and Co. v. J. Johnston (Tapanui), claim £6 12s, goods supplied, with costs (£1 10s fid). JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. .

B. P. Thompson v. J. W. Frew, claim £1 17s, on a judgment summons.—The defendant was ordered to pay the amount duo forthwith, with costs (9s), in default two days’ imprisonment. John Mill and Co. v. W. Bennie, claim £1 10s 9d.—The defendant was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, with costs (8s), in default two days’ imprisonment. T. Milne v. J. Scoles, claim £3 3s fid.— The defendant was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, with costs (6s), in default three days’ imprisonment. MAINTENANCE OF A CHILD.

- Margaret Stanley Boreham, of Ravensbourne, claimed £9 from her husband, Walter Boreham, under an agreement between them, by which thft defendant was to pay £1 per week, for the support of their child, which was born on February I, 1928. —Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the plaintiff, and Boreham defended the claim himself.—After hearing the evidence of the wife, and a long statement by the defendant detailing his negotiations with his solicitor, his Worship asked if the defendant had not signed the agreement produced. Defendant admitted that he had, and his Worship said he must have known what it contained.—The defendant said the question of money did not enter into the dispute. He was prepared to pay for the child if it were placed in a home. What he objected to waJ the child being left in the home of his mother-in-law.— His Worship said that he could not take any notice of the rambling statements made by the defendant regarding his negotiations with his solicitor. Judgment would be given for the amount claimed, with costs (£2 6s).