S.M Court.

Opunake Times, Volume II, Issue 80, 9 April 1895, Page 2

S.M Court.

Iriday, April sth, 1895. (Before H. W. Brabant, Esq., S.M.) JUDGMENT SUMMONS. A. Clough v. F. Hatcher. Judgment summons. Mr A. H. Moore appeared as agent for plaintiff, but the S.M. ruled that appearance must be made personally or by a solicitor, unless through some unavoidable cause for non-appearance of the plaintiff. Mr Bailey was instructed by Mr Moore to appear. Defendant offered to pay £1 down and £1 per month until debt was liquidated. Order made accordingly. civil cases. D. C. Simson v. Tamakaha. Mr Bailey for defendant. Plaintiff applied for an adjournment, as bis solicitor, who was attending the Supreme Court at New Plymouth, sould not attend. Adjourned till next Court day on plaintiff paying costs. Wha*f Company v. Dickson. Adjourned at request of defendant until next Court day. E. Ecdgers v. W. Fowler. Claim £l9 19s. Mr Bailey for plaintiff.

Defendant put in a contra account for £4 10s 6d. There was very conflicting evidence with regard to part of the s t-off claim, judgment eventually bei >g given for plaintiff for £l6 9s. Costs £1 ss, solicitor's fee £1 6s. E. Ei gers v. C. Geary. Claim £7 12s.

Mr Bailey for plaiutiff. Judgment for plaintiff for £7 12s. Costs 15s, solicitor's fee 15s 6d.

Messrs G. W. Gane and A. Morrison, J.P.'s, here took their seats on the Ben.jh.

E. H. Seceombe v. F. Hickey. Claim £3 15s.

Mr Bailey for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for £8 15s. Costs 6s, solicitor's fee ss.

E. Morris v. W. Fowler. Claim £4 os4d.

Mr Bailey for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff by consent, £1 to be paid down and 10s per month. Costs ss, solicitor's fee ss. Christie and Co. v. Hakaria. Claim £SO. Mr Biiiley for plaintiff.

Judgment by consent for amount claimed. Costs £1 7s, solicitor's fee £2 ss.

Wm. O'Neill v. Hakaria. Claim £SB

Mr Bailey for plaintiff. Mr A. Good acted as interpreter.

This was a claim for 42 weeks' wages at £llos per week, and 42 days at 7s per day, due to one D. Murphy who was engaged by plaintiff to work for defendant, less £l4 10s received by plaintiff and £4 10s received by D. Murphy. The cafence was a general denial that the/ had been engaged by defendant. Very voluminous evidence was givin both by plaintiff and defendant, and eventually the S.M., accompanied by Messrs Gane and Morrison, inspected and valued the work, when judgment was given for plaintiff for £7 19s Bd, Costs £2 5s 6d, solicitor's fee £1 6s.

Wi Kupe v. Shapsleski. Claim £l2 19s 10c! being £6 error in account supplied by defendant and on which payment was made, and the difference being short payment on account of bullock claimed for at £1 5s per day and paid for at £1 per day. Mr Bgnnefjfc for plaintiff. Mr Bailey for defen< iant.

Judgmmfc for plaintiff for £6 13s. Costs £2 lis, interpreter £1 Is, solicitor's fee £1 le.