DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2884, 30 June 1909, Page 34

DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

"Tuesday; Jtjke 22. -fßpfore Mr H.""Y." Widdowson, 8.M.) Undefended Caeei. — Judgment by default was entered in the foilo'wing cases: — -Aubrey X J. Wright (Mr Moore) v. Joseph C. Amorotty, claim £2 on a dishonoured " cheques and coste (10s) ; P. Flanagan (Mr Jlamsay) v. S. P. Hodge, claim £3 0s 2d, for gcods supplied, and costs (10s); W S. Reddoll and Q o . (Mr Moore) v. Frank M'Namara, daim £10 15s 6d, for goods supplied, .and rosla (£1 15s 6d) ; 'Wilson, Bros. (Mr Moore) v. John Fahej-, claim for costs (3s) ; H. Wise and Co. (Mr Moore) ' v. James S. Tilley (Gia-borne), claim fll 10s for advertising, and costs (ss); H. Wi>» and Co. (Mr Mcore) v. Wilson and Lilley" (Gisborne), claim £2 lls, for advertising, and costs (10s); H. Wiso and Co. (Mr Moore) V. Younj? and Co. (Te"Kuiti), claim £7 7«, Cor advertising, and costs (£1 3s 6d) ; - H. Wise and Co. (Mr Moore) v. Henry S. Hook (L-evih), claim £2 &. for advertisings and coste (10s); H. Wke and Co. v. Emmanuel A. Simpson (Dannevrrke), claim *• £1 Is, advertising, and coste (ss) ; B. Hud- - eon and Co. (Mr Hanlon) v. Chan Fan (BltJham), claim £12, for goods supplied, ■> and costs (£1 10s 6d) ; Elizabeth Ross (Mr ' -Ramsay) v. Robert^Gough (Mosgiel), claim-'-£3 17s, for. .rent, and costs (10a) ; R. S. Ton'- " kinson and Co • (Mr A. H. 'Tonkins-on) v. Geo. Choo Quee, claim £9 10s, for balance -' of goods supplied, and -costs- (£1 4s 6d) ; 51. , Wise and Co. (Mr Moore) ,v. Stumipl Chamberlain (Chriatchiurch), ola,im £3 10s 6d, for dishonoured promissory note, and costs • (10s); T. A. Hunter v. TV. J. 'Ward (Ore- ' puki), claim £10 10s. for .professional eer- ' vices, and costs (£1 10s/6d). •Judgment Summonses. — In -the 'case Win. Cocker ill (Mr Moore) v. "Thomas Hegarty, claim for 9s 6d and costs (ss). an omW was mad© for payment . forthwith, with th« alternative of 24 hours' imprisonment.

Thtjbsdat, Jcxe 24. (Before Mr H. Y.'Widdowson, S.M.) Judg-ment was entered for , plaintiffs bydefault in the following" undefended cases: Otago School Commissioners (i/tr Scantlebury) v. George Baird and Adam Baird, claim Bs, balance- on account, stated (costs £2) : Johnston, Sons, and Co. ,(Mr Scantlebury) v. Albert Thomas Almond, claim £2 8s 6d, for publications delivered (coste 10s) ; Smith and Smith,- Ltd. (Mr Scaratlebury) v. James Williams, claim £2 2s 3d, on account stated (costs 10s) ; James Sterthouse (Mr Hay) v. Patrick Hogan (Riverton), claim £24, dishonoured cheque (costs £2 14s); the Buyers and Sellers Co. -(Mr Moore) v. Herbert "V. Gush (Gisborne), claim ££ ' 4s, for advertising (coste 10s); Wise andt '■ Co. (Mi- Moore) v. J. Win. Dixoh' (Drury), claim £3 3s, for advertising- (costs 12s) ;| _' Wise and Co. (Mr Moore) v. George 1t... Hamilton (Auckland), 'claim £3, for adver 1 - . tising (costs 10s) ; Alfred Washer. (Me White) v.' Jas. -M.'Watt'(lnvercargill), claim! ' £8-8s", on account' stated and for rent (costs ' 23s 6d) ,- M Morton and Sou (Mr Seahtle- ' bury), v. Leonard Armstrong (Seddon), claim £2 14s Id, on account stated (costa 10s) ; Wise and Co. (Mr Moore) v. May I>Murphy (Auckland), claim £3 10s, foi> advertising (costs 10s); Smith and Sm-itlf, Ltd. (Mr Scantlebury), v. John- Halliburton King (Pembroke), claim £2 14s 9d, onf stated (costa 103).