S.M. Court.

Opunake Times, Volume V, Issue 198, 28 July 1896, Page 2

S.M. Court.

Friday, July 24th, 1896. Before Mr H. W. Brabant, Esq., S.M. Mr Gane, J .P. also took his seat on the bench. G. W. Rogers v. T. Munday. Mr Bailey for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for £6 Os lOd; costs. 8s ; solicitor's fee, 15s 6d. R. H. Seccombe v. B. Ewing. Mr Bailey for plaintiff. Judgment for £4 8s lOd ; cosH 5s ; solicitor, 10s 6d. T. A. B. Bailey v. F. W. Carrington. Judgment for plaintiff for £2 5s and costs, ss. Newman Bros (Mr Bailey) v. H. Reid. Judgment for plaintiff £2Blßs 7d ; oost3, £1 8s ; solicitor's fee, £1 lis.

0. MoHardy v. S. A. Breach. Information re impounding and claiming £1 2s damages. Mr Bailey for plaintiff. Owing to Mr McHardy's unavoidable absence in Sydney, Mr Bailey applied for an adjournment, to which Mr Breach objected. Information dismissed. M. Faulkner (Mr Bailey) v. G. Horo. Claim, £1 3s. Defendant disputed a quantity of scrim charged for, stating that he had only used 14 yards instead of 41 yards charged for. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs, 23s 6a, tha magistrate stating that defendant had not taken proper care of it, whilst in his possession, and that if some of it bad been taken from his house that ho was responsible for it. W. Pettigrew (Mr Bailey) v. H. Hodgson. Claim, £2 14s 61. Plaintiff deposed that goods to the value of over £2l had been supplied, that the charges were fair and -reasonable, and that the balance was still due and owing. Defendant stated that the prices were not in accordance with arrangements made with plaintiff's assistant account was opened, aud that the discounts on similar lines were not the same as evidenced by the bill of particulars. On the understanding that he was to have goods at list price he had put in for contract at Foresters' Hall but found ho had to pay more for material than he got for the job. In answer to the Bench Mr Pettigrew said the difference in discount allowed was owing to one lot of goods being indented for Mr Hodgson and delivered at Manaia where freight was paid. Judgment for amount claimed and costs, 6s ; solicitor, £1 Is. Parihaka Boad Board v. C. Geary. Judgment by default for 9s 4d rates, and costs 9s.

P. Fleming (Mr Bailey) v. J. C. O'Rorke. This was a claim for wages, plaintiff stating he agreed with defendant for £1 a week during summer months and 17s 61 per week during winter months.

Defendant had paid 17s Gd per week iuto Court, and stated that the £1 a week was to be for next summer, as plaintiff only came to work for him at the end of the season. He had tendered payment after deducting price of a horse which plaintiff bought when he was leaving, and had since paid the full amount at 17s 6d per week into Cuurt.

Judgment for amount claimed and costs 18s.

T. McGloin (Mr Bailey) v. W. Humphrey. Claim £d 4s, for gravel at 6i per yard taken from plaintiff's pit, aud damage to paddock.Judgment was entered for plaintiff by consent for £6 6s and costs 10s, solicitor 15s 6d.

Town Board v. Vickery. Claim, 7s lOd for rates on Sections 15 and 17. The sum of 5s KM, rates ou Section 17, bad been paid into Court. The defence was that he was not the occupier of Section 15, and his name had been put on the valuation roll without his consent. Defendant stated be had entered into negotiations for lease of section, and pending such had sown a crop of oats, which he afterwards sold to Mr Dudley. The negotiations fell through and defendant never occupied the section. The Court held that defendant being in actual occupation he was liable to be charged with rates, and gave judgment for 2s and costs 9s.