DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2902, 27 October 1909, Page 40

DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Tuesday, October 5. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdouson, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases : — W. S. Reddell and Co v. Thomas Clare (Oniakau, claim 13s 6d, for goods (costs ss) ; Johnston, Sons, and Co. v. John London (Auckland), claim £2 15s, for goods (costs 10s) ; same y. G sorgo Charles Meachem (Auckland), claim £2 Bs, for goods (costs 10s) ; Otago Daily Times Company v. Patrick M'Grath (Wellington), claim £2 6s Bd, for subscriptions (costs ss); A. M'Kinlay v. Thomas Flo>d .'Auckland), claim £2 14s, for goods (costs 11-0; John Gillies v. Fiederick Searle, claim £2 15s, for goods (ccsts 11s) ; George^on Bros. v. Alfred E. Edwards (Invercargill), claim £2 8s lid, for goods (costs 10s); Dawson and Co v. Thomas SaltW, claim £1 7«, for goods (co-ts ss) ; .same v. Eli/.a, Penson, chim £4 12s, for goods (costs 10s); L. S. Donald v. John Moffett (Inver-caig-ill), claim 3s, for goods (costs 5-*) : A. M-Kinlay i-. -John Bui ffe-^s (Mosg-iel), claim £2 Ids for goods (costs 10s). David M'Farlane v. Alex. Wat-on — Claim, £70 Is 7d, on a judgment summons. —Mr Ewing appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Scurr for defendant, who in evidence said ho was unable to pay — The case was dismis.'^ed Edward R. Quin v. William Thomas Smith.— Claim, £5 9s 3d, balance due, by defendant to plaintiff on an account in connection with dissolution of partnership between the parties as fruiterers.— Mr Hay appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hawkins for defendant.— The statement by plaintiff was that when the partnership was dissolved thpre was some £12 owing by the firm, and defendant agreed to pay £5 of it, plaintiff paying the remainder. "Defendant did not ]>ay anything, but engasod to ".square" a debt owing to ono Bo\d. Ilvg did not do that either, arid m th^ pnd Boyd sued th^ two of t/iPin, and plaintiff had' to pay. — Defendant denied that hp had f\er agreed to pay Boyd's account, and said Qum \,as to take the whole ii.sk of the biisi/i^s-s. — Judgment was sriven for plaintiff for £3 6s 4d, with costs (£1 6s). Cyril Charles Marsh v. William SadW.— Claim, to recover under the Wago-, Piotection and Contractor-,' T ion Act £66, being balance- of £106 for material supplied for. and additions made to, the hoiis^ of defendant.— ln July last defendant had paid £40 as a progress payment under the contract, and in Sppternbpr claimant gave notice of claim of lien. No ciodit \vn.s agreed to bo <rivon by claimant, who now claimed a lien for £66 on the land of defendant at Lome sticet, South Dunedtn — The defence set up was ihat tho contmrt was not completed, and that what work was done was not done according to sp<?< :- Ccation.— Mr H. D. Bedford appeared for pl.iintiff. and Mi- DrJamore for defendant — At 5 o'clock the further hearing of tho ca-e was adjournod tiU Tiaisday no\t, the I'-agistiate in Uio meantiino to insi)ect tfio iI'JU*. TrF.snAv. October 12. (Before Mr 11. V Widdowson, S.M) Judgment ,\as given for plaintilts in th-i following undefended cases : —Johu-ron. Sons, and Co. \. Iloib'iit Wvhh (Timjui), claim £1 3s 6d, balance on account, v.i.ii costs (10s); John Gilhos v. Wil,on (J. \. Rutled»e, clai-n £1, b.iLnce on account vith costs (ss); A. and W. M-Caithy v. John M'Nair (Duntroon), claim £5 6.-. Id, goods sold and money pai<l, vvitli co^t^, (£1 Is 6d); Ahlfeld Bro, and Co. v. Jamo Fci-ru'-oi (Waipaw,i), flaim £8 is, f,'ooclsupphed, with cosU (£1 3s 6rl) ; the School Commit, ioners of dago v. John A. Wilson (Blulrj, daim £2 Gs "lOd, icnt and in tores', with coita (10^.); Brown, Ste^l. v and Co. v. Albert J. Noo-^ (Gioymouth). claim £5 0- 6d, dishonoured cheque, with costs (£1 3=. 6d) ; Mrs Anna Siedobortr v. Eino^i Corlev. claim £1 2s, rent of cottjgc, v\ith cos!-, (5.-.). Ahxandor Congal f oi v. Joseph Jones, claim JC4 15s lid on a judgment summons. — M.- Allan appeared for plaintiff, and, in th© absence of defendant, an order was made that he pay the sum claimed forthwith, in default seven days' imprisonment. 'XUrumma. P. Grow v. Dimond and Hart, ol

Wellington, claim £37 10s, commission due on orders collected, executed, and paid for. — Mr Irwin appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Moore for defendants. — Mr Irwin said that plaintiff had been employed by the defendants to travel for them on commission, taking orders for photo enlargements. He was to receive 12£ per cent, when he received the order for the picture and an ad- ! ditional 122 P^ cent, when the picture was paid for. Plaintiff travelled round the country and took a, nt niber of orders, for which he received signed slips. These were forwarded to tho firm, and they paid him 12£ per cent, on tho value of the orders. The firm afterwards sent a man to verify the orders, and in every case it was found that the orders sent were genuine. Plaintiff remained in the employ of the firm for about 12 months, and when he left all the orders were not completed. Since then he had had several interviews with the firm, j which informed him that as the orders were not completed he could not be paid. Under j the Trick £ct plaintiff was a worker, and theiefove should be paid his wages. — EviI donee ha\ ing beon given, Mr Moore said that the claim must be very carefully scruiinisod on account of the length of time i that had elapsed before plaintiff had thought |At to take action Defendants wore greatly ■ hampered, owing to the death of Mr j Diinond. with whom plaintiff had made the ; contract. In 1904 Dimond and Hart ha>l ' told plainrifr that there was no balance in | his favour, yet it was 1907 before he sued. | — Evidence was given on behalf of defsn- ] cLints. end at 4 p.m. the further hearing j of tho ea*'-" w.is adjourned to some future ! dale to bo fixed. i | THun?n\T, October 14. /Before Mr 11. Y. Widdowson. S.M.) Judgment for tho plaintiffs was given in the follovvipc: undefondod cases : —James ' Yat^s (Mr D. D. Mi^dona'd) v James Dredge and Nollio Drodge, of Palmerstcn 1 North claim £5 15s 7d for goods supnli-cd, I with cost* (£1 6s 6dk M'Gavin and Co. v. Goorgo R. Smith, of Mataura, claim £2 5s balanco duo on go~ds *oid, with ecs^s . Q6-): W. Aitk»n and Son (Mr A. C. Hanlon) v. John Sutherland, claim £s_2s 3d. for <rf*c<\s «ijnph°d. »viih 00-ts (£1 5s 6d) : .Atfr-d IT. Bui ton v. William Ross, claim PA 11s 6(1, for instruction in elocution, with ro=t< (fc) : A. Moritzson and Co. (Mr Hay) ) v. Whito«ide Bros., of West port, claim £5 19s 7d, r-nlaneo due on pood.^ supplied. i with cost* (£1 3* 6d) : Donald Roid and 1 Co. (Mr Statham) v ITa-11 Bro«.. of Pukehiki, claim £14 12s 7d for pigs and fodder, with costs (£2 14s 6d). Titesd\y. October 19. (Before Mr 11. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Undefended Cases. — Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended case.-,: — 11. Wise and Co. v. Ernest Crais; (Wellington), claim £2 2s, for advertising(costs 13s) ; Waters, Ritchie, and Co., v. ] G. Lansbcrg (Groymouth), claim £17 12s 3d, j for goods supplied (ccsts £1 10s 6d) ; Herbert Renshavv v. Simon Ferry, claim £1 7s, j balanco due on account (costs 12s) ; D.I.C. v. Kdward Howard Wood (Wellington), claim £1. amount of account stated (costa ss) ; Taratu Coal and Railway Company v. llobort Cook (Livingstone), claim £3 11s 3d, for goods supplied (costs £1 10s). Judgment Summonses. — William Ginsberg (Dunedin) 'proceadod against Steve Boreham, claiming £4 2s 6d under a judg- | nient summons. — Defendant did not appear, j and an order was mads for the payment of the amount forthwith, in default seven da->>' imprisonment. William Ingram pioc<vd"'l agdin^t John M'Lellan, claiming £12 7s 8d under a judgment summons. — | Defendant appeared in court and made a. stf'.k'mont. and the magistrate mad© an ordor for tho pa\mcnt of the amount on o>bofoio Novombor 19, in default 21 dav.s' lmpiisbmncnt. Sale of a Cow. — Edward Ruliy Brinsdon (Ilalfv.av Bush), for whom Mr J. B. Nichol appeal od, prooeedod against Robert H-oi bison (Green Island), defended by Mr Bedford, claiming £10 in respect to tho salo of a cow. In his claim plaintiff stated that, on or about May 13 last, defendant warranted a certain cow to bo in calf, and that she would calve about the end of that ! month. He had sc?n the sale advertised m tho Otacro 'Daily Times, in which row= " due to calve ' were referred to, and had sioii" to the sale. "Th/» auctioneer had said that this cow was in calf, and plaintiff. aff»r inspection, bought her foi £3 15s. I' turnod out that sho vvns not in calf, and v, oith only about £3 at th" date of tho sa!o. Plaintiff therefor" claimed £5 15« tho difl'ororice betvve?n what he had paid and what the cow was won h, and £4 5s for "loci-il daiungo*. — Plaintiff gavo evidence dotdilinp Ins vi*it to tho salo^ (conducted by tho KirnpiV ( 'o-onera 1 1 ye Association), and stated that li-" had af forwards nlaimpd coni-p^n.-.ition Tho speoial (lamnsf^s arnic out of tho (net xh.it h<? had nurr-hased Iho r-ow to assist in supplying his customers, that had fail-nl to do so. and that ho had had to faod hor. — Tho dofonoo was that the row was sold in Iho I>o]iof that .sh" wa.s in rulf, and that no "uaranleo was given that .=ho wa= in ralf — Evidence vvns trivon by ;!io pl.untjff (F, R. P.i in^don). G. ?C M'lii'. s}i. J»il n ITutii' il.i 1 . William Brin.-do!i | il>^ <]i foiu) int'- (Willi.nn Horhison and i T'ho'iias E (fri])i,t.iO mid tlic dofond-.n' ' ITlobovt HeibiNori) — Hi- Worship, in giving, I-i- <1""1»Kjii. snrl thsit l.i> holiovil tho row ( l'iid bo->n *old in jvrfoct good faith by lh" | d(>f/--nd,mt. Still it to him from th° v.-Iki!<» frctn (hat *)iis was a sa!^> wifli n ro'diTioii attafhod — i!> it tli" o<->w ws>, ju r,Jf IT" {hous-ht th:.l the plaintTff was o'intl"l to =n r;m\ and jiidirmi'iit would 1^ gi\°n for tli«» d'ff^ionr-- l^otw-oon tho |„ie paicl for tlio row ,uul th-o val'io of a f f oro o- w 'in that daio — flint v.a«. judgment was for £5 5? and cr.=ts (£5 17^). Tiiri:sn\T O/TO3KR 21. (R-foio Mr H. Y. W.'ldovv.con. S.M.) .) tdff)P'"nf' wps pn-on for plaintiff-* in tho t fci'low u"s ini(["f--"Hl--(l r a>os : — .To'in-triii, | Hot -. ai'.l Co v H°itrv (Joulon Vni'Mi I (Srd.hurii. C-nt^ilnii'-). claim £3 15* for roorls .-upi>l>-d (co=i, 11-j : J A. O'Biipn v M:n\ .lan« Huirhp« (Mo?giol), flaim £2, 1) '!!""■ <.] i^ for a t-uit of clothes for dofpnd.jnt'^ 'on, a minor .(co-.ts 10->) ; Hon.ry Wt-e-and Co v Mont.tsju .Spotswood (W--Ilug-t(iii), daitn £4 4s. for axlvortising. eto. (ccsts 10, ) ; simp v. William Hocke (Wellington), claim £1 !.s. for a Duoctory (costs 8=) ; Cathorin'O M'Fadven v. Emily Stainf-s (Goie), claim £14 1?* Id, balanca due on a promissory noto which had to be met by defendant (co->ts 30s. 6d) ; The Bakers' Union of Workers v. Albert Taylor, claim £1 6s for contributions (costs 6s). T. E. Shiel and Co. v. George Edwards.— Claim £4 6s Id, being the difference between the contract prioe of some fruit at which it wa3 alleged defendant had agreed to purchase, and what it realised by auction

on refusal by defendant to accept it. — Mr . Scantlebury for plaintiffs, and Mr Hay for defendant. — Judgment was given for defendant, with costs (£2 19s).

A rather peculiar case was mentioned s.t the Wellington Magistrate's Court a few days ago. It appears that the plaintiff claimed a sum of money from deteirdant, balance alleged to b& due after deducting a contra account owing by plaintiff to defendant. Plaintiff, it seems, claimed £10 as a. reward for obtaining defendant a position m the Civil Servioa and thus propest'd to ask the court for judgment for the difference. Plaintiff did not, however, appear. The decline in the population of the city, of Glasgow, which was about 12,000 last year, presents a troublesome question to these directly interested in its prosperity.It has been suggested that the recent stagnation in the engineering and shipbuilding' industries is partly the cause. Swaggers are no uncommon sight on the country roads, but ou Tuesday, ISth inst., on? passing through Winchester attracted unusual attention. He was a Chinaman, and he carriad a regulation swag, as if to the manner born.