DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2934, 8 June 1910, Page 37

DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Thursday, May 26. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.)

Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following cases:—Rachael Kellett v. Walter La Compte (Knapdale), claim £1 3s, account stated (costs 10s); John Hutchison v. Daniel Stewart (Burnside), claim £4 5s 3d, for goods (costs £1 6s 6d); Otto Lasse v. William J. M. Williams, claim £1 15s 4d, for goods (costs ss); Johnston, Sons, and Co. v. Harry and Mary Fellingham (Heathcote), claim £1 16s 6d, goods (costs 16s); same v. Albert Edward Flyger (Wanganui), claim £4 4s 6d, for goods (costs 18s); same v. John Alfred Harres (Inglewood), claim £1 Bs, for goods (costs ss); Thomson, Cleghorn, and Co. v. J. W. Carler (Pahiatua), claim £1 10s, subscriptions due (costs ss) ; same v. A. E. Peake (Blenheim), claim £2 2s, subscriptions (oosts 10s); same v. E. A. M. Leary (Waihi), claim £3, subscriptions (costs 10s); Francis Parler v. Francis E. Ward (Timaru). claim £3 10s, money lent (costs 6s); Elizabeth C. Dreaver v. Frederick Gallard Don, claim £l, goods (costs ss). Judgment Summonses.—Orders were made in the following cases : —C. J. Coombs v. John Bourke, claim £2 13s, with 6s costs, payment forthwith, or, in default, three days' imprisonment; W. Harris and Son v. Edwin John Haydon, claim £2 12s, with 5s costs; payment to be made before June 9, or three days' imprisonment. In the cas>3 of Alice Watts (Mr A. A. Finch) v. Frank Bellew, agent, claim for an unsatisfied judgment for £3 16s, due for board and residence, Bellew, a single man, pleaded that he was working on commission, and earned 18s or 20s per month. He said that he was unable to satisfy the judgment, and put in a statement 6'howin.g that from March, 1909. to May last he-had earned £57 15s 6d. He said that he had tried to get work, but could not. —He was ordered to pay 20s per month on the first day of each month, with 5s costs, in default seven days' imprisonment.—ln the rase of Robert Arthur Ayers (Mr Bedford) v. John M'Donald, an order was made against the debtor for the payment of £1 13s, with 8s costs, in default three days' imprisonment. Edward Taylor v. Herman Alexander. — Claim 7s 6d, due for printing tickets. — After hearing evidence iudgment was given for the amount claimed, with 6s costs. B. S. Irwin v. W. H. J. Hunt.—Claim £1 Is, amount of a professional bill of costs. The plaintiff proved his debt, and showed that it was framed in accordance with the act. —The defendant stated that he never engaged plaintiff to act for him, hut that Mr Irwin, took the oa.se to keen himself in practice.— order was mad<> for the payment of the amount claimed, with 6« costs. Charles Gamble and Co. (Mr A. A. Finch) v. Janet Steven~=on (Mr Hav). — Claim £42 7s Id balance due on a contract for building a cow byre on defendant's farm at Otokia for tK» sum of £64, and for and material supplied in connection with the contract.—The defence relied on was that the contmct had not been pronprt.lv completed, and a. counter claim for ■67 19s M was put in for board and lodging bv the nlaintiff'« men. for cartatre. and for simnl-^d.—Several witnesses were and th» further hearing was adjourned till the following day. Tuesday, May 31. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiff in the following cases: —Johnston, Sons, and Co. (Mr Scantlebury), 33s for goods supplied. The amount was paid into court, and judgment was given for 12s costs. Same v. Jos. O'Leary (Masterton), 30s for goods supplied. The sum claimed .was paid into court, and judgment was given for costs 6s. Same V. Chas. Wilson (Auckland), £2 ss, goods supplied, 12s costs; A. and J. M'Farlane (Mr Moore) v. Antonio Piro (Portobello), £2 9s sd, goods, and 12s■costs; Stone, Son. and Co., Ltd. (Mr Scantlebury) v. Hy. Wm. Smith (Wanganui), £3 2s 6d, goods, 10s costs; same (Mr Santlebury) v. Edward Alexander Golding (New Plymouth), £1 Is, goods, 5s costs; Robt. Hart (Mr Cooke) v. Thos. White (Windsor), £3 18s lOd, goods, 16s costs; J. and J. Arthur (Mr Moore) v. Wm. Ranker (Eketabuna), £4 Is, goods, 10s costs; Donaghy and Co., Ltd. (Mr Lemon) v. Hutt Valley Hardware Co., £2 12s, dishonoured cheque, 10scosts; Robert Hart v Jas. Brown, £2 13s for goods, 13s costs; same v. Albert Dickson, 9s for goods, 6s costs; D.I.C. (Mr Moore) v. Frederick E. Stewart (Wa ; ipaia), £4 lis 3d, goods, 10s costs; A. C Scherp (Mr Irwin) v. J. E. James (Brunner)., £ll 76, goods, £1 10s 6d costs; Leviathan Hotel Co., Ltd. (Mr Brugh) v. John Jobberus (Geraldine), £2, dishonoured' cheque, 13s costs. Judgment Summonses.—Orders were made against debtors in the following case: —T. H. Ponps v. J. Long, £5 2s Id, to be paid forthwith, with 7s costs, in default 7 days' imprisonment; J. &. Paterson v. John Wilson, £ls 10s 6d. to be paid in instalments of 12s 6d per week, with 15s costs. Walter Dray v. M. M'Lean.—Action to recover £2 lOs, wages due, and 8s lid, oommission on sale of tea.—The evidence in support of the claim was contradictory, and for the defence it was contended that Dray had not sold sufficient tea to enable him. to claim commission.—Plaintiff was non-suited, with costs £1 Is.—Mr Ramsay appeared for the defence.

Thursday, June 2. (Before Mr H Y. Widdowson, S.M

Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases: —H. E. Sniacklock (Mr Wood) v. J. Wilson (Papatowai), claim £7 lis 2d, goods (costs £2 Os 6d); Butterworth Bros. (Mr Statham) v. F. Maher (Gisborne), claim £3 15s 3d, goods (costs 10s); E. Leslie (Mr Baron) v. C. Yates, claim £1 6s 4d, goods (costs ss); G. J, K. M'Kenzie v. Maud Ingram, claim £1 8s 4d, goods (costs ss). Judgment Summons.—Orders were made against the judgment debtor in the case of John Winton. (Mr White) v. James

Dunn. The amount owing to be paid in instalments of 20s per month, with fo costs, in default three days' imprisonment.

Waters, Ritchie, and Co. (Mr Adams) v. Skelton and Jones of Westport (MiHay).—Action to recover £9 19s 9d, value of 23 saoka of Oamaru potatoes, and 2s, cost of insurance and exchange, sold by plaintiffs to defendant.—Much of the evidence in the case had been taken at Westport on commission. The potatoes were sold on November 27, and were shipped per collier steamer to defendants at Westport, where they arrived on December 10. The plaintiffs' salesman (Mr Evans) deposed that he examined four out of the 23 bags sold and found them to be in good condition and free from disease. It vtlis sought to bo established on beha'f of plaintiffs that whatever deterioration the potatoes suffered on the voyage was no more than might bo expected from the long time taken in their transmission and the fact that they were old potatoes. For the defence it was contended that the potatoes were not in a merchantable condition when sold, and were badly infected with Irish blight; that most of the consignment was rotten on reaching Westport, some of the Higs being sold at Is 6d each and the remainder carted to the rubbish heap.—The defendants paid 27s into court as the value of the potatoes.— A great deal of evidence was taken, and the further hearing was adjourned in order that the evidence of Professor Kirk might be taken as to the nature and effect of Irish blight.