Manaia S.M Court.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 16, 24 August 1894, Page 3

Manaia S.M Court.

Thuksday, 23kd August. (Before Major Tuke, S.M.) UNDEFENDED. Patterson v. Ashley. Judgment for plaintiff, at the rate of ids per month. Patterson v. Suisted; £1 paid on account. Judgment for plaintiff for balance, with costs. Bolton v. Graham ; claim £33 10s. To stand over. Young Bros. v. Gapper ; judgment summons. Adjourned till next court day. Canning v. Gamlin ; claim £27 15s 2d. This was a bush-felling store case in which the storekeeper claimed from Gamlin, owner of the bush, the amount of the stores supplied to the contractor, Mannix, for whose evidence the case was adjourned from last court day. The goods were supplied on Gamlin’s verbal promise to pay out of moneys to come due to Mannix, but Gamlin* claimed that Mannix had already been overpaid; and, further, that he had defaulted, and consequently he declined to pay. Mr Welsh, for Gamlin, contended that in the absence of a written agreement, and of the money owing to Mannix, plaintiff should be non-suited. Judgment accordingly, with costs £8 15s. T. R. Exley v. Eothery and Wiley; claim £3l Is Bd. Plaintiff held defendants, who are contractors, responsible for a sub-contactor’s (Lynch) debit. Mr Barton appeared for defendants, and Mr Scott-Smith for plaintiff. Daynells, in his evidence, stated that Eothery had offered to pay 10s in the £, which was refused. No written guarantee had been given by Rotherey and Wiley.- Defendants’ names bad been put by plaintiff at the bead of the sub-contractor’s account — thus, “ Lynch and Co., per Eothery and Wile f t,” which practice counsel condemned as a trick and a useless subterfuge in the absence of a written guarantee, the amount being over £l. [Left sitting.]