DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3015, 27 December 1911, Page 29

DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Tuesday, December 12. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for the plaintiffs in the following undefended cases: —M. Morton and Son (Mr Moore) v. W. J. Thomas (Invercargill), claim £ll 15s lOd, amount of account, with costs (£1 10s 6d); Blakelay and others (Mr E. A. Duncan) v. Susan Wilson, claim £ls 10s, for rent due, with costs (£l 10s 6d); John Edward Butler (Ltd.) (Mr Scantlebury) v. W. P. York and Sons (Motueka), claim £ls Is 9d, amount of promissory note, with costs <£2 0s 6d); Alex. M'Leod (Mr Moore) v. Thomas Quirk, for costs (8s); D.I.C. (Mr Moore) v. William Harris (Invercargill), claim 15s sd, for goods supplied, with costs (ss); Archibald Thompson (Mr Moore) v. George Lee (Invercargill), claim £2 15s 6d, amount of account, with costs (10s); Hay ward and Garratt (Mr Moore) v. James Garner, claim £5 4s lOd, amount of account, with costs (£1 3s 6d); Walter A. Scott (Mr Moore) v. Charles Gwynne (Wellington), claim £6, for hire of bicycle, with costs (£1 3s 6d); H. Wise and Co. (Ltd.) (Mr Moore) v. John Pauling, claim £4 10s, for goods supplied, with, oosts (10s); Chas. V. M'Kenzio (Mr Moore) v. Reginald S. Cutfield, claim £7 0s 4d, amount of account, with costs (£1 4s 6d); Wilbert Pearce (Mr Moore) v. Reginald S. Cutfield, claim £1 Is lid, amount of account, with costs (6s); Johnston, Sons and Co. (Mr Scantlebury) v. John Bell (Christchurch), claim £1 2s, for goods supplied, with costs (lis); Wimpenny Bros. (Mr A. C. Smith) v. Frank Lincoln (Auckland), claim £3 10s 6d, for hire of motor car, with costs (10s); Universal Postcard Co. v. Charles Fox, claim £l6 4s 2d, amount of promissory note and interest, with costs (£1 10s 6d); Johnston, Sons, and Co. (Mr Scantlebury) v. James Andrew (Foxton), claim £2, for goods delivered, with costs (10s); samo v. Henry Pobinson (Shannon), claim £3 15s, for goods delivered, with costs (10s); same v. William John Quayle (Palmerston North), claim £3 ss, for goods delivered, with costs (lis); same v. H. Cole and Son (Masterton), claim £1 lis 6d, for goods delivered, with costs (ss); same v. Henry Lloyd Bainford (Mangatainoka), claim £2 12s 6d, for goods delivered, with costs (12s); Alfred Anderson and Henry Isaacs (Mr Moore) v. J. F. J. Zemaulk, claim £lB 7s 6d, for goods delivered, with costs (£1 10s 6d); H. Wise and Co. (Mr Moore) v. B. H. M'Cready (Opotiki), claim £1 10s, for advertising, with costs (ss); Macdougall and Co. (Mr Moore) v. Misa Gladys Philips (Wellington), claim £7 19s. for goods sup6 lied, with costs (£1 5s 6d); H. Wise and fo. (Mr Moore) v. H. W. Littlewood (Ohakune), claim £4 103, for goods delivered, with costs (10s); J. J. Reddingtoh (Mr a. C. Smith) v. Richard Pennington (Waianiwa), claim £5, amount of promissory mofe, with costs (£1 14s 6d); Thomson, Bndger, and Co. (Ltd.} (Mr Moore)

v. Robert Meikle, jun. (Kelso), claim £6l 18s Id, for goods supplied, with costs (*4 7s 6d); Edward Crosland (Mr J. 8. Sinclair) v. Walter George Marr, claim i>4 5s lOd, for goods supplied, with costs (10s). G. Lattimoro v. J. O'Neill.—This was a claim for payment of £2 15s for judgment obtained. Defendant did not appear. and an order was made that the amount be paid into court forthwith, with costs (ss), in default three days' imprisonment, Ahlfeld Bros, and Co. v. Gus. Coulson.—' This was a claim for payment of £2 10s 3d, being amount of judgment obtained. Defendant did not appear, and an order was made for the payment of the amount of judgment remaining due (£1 5s 3d), with costs (ss).

Tuesday, DEcmnrEß 19. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases: —Johnston, Sons, and Co. (Mr Soarotlebury) v. Patrick Dunne, claim £3 15s, for goods supplied, N with costs (lOsl; same v. Lewis Roberts, claim £2 7s 6d, for goods supplied, with costs (10s); same v. James Henry M'Mahon (Hamilton West), claim £4 3s, for goods delivered, with costs (10s); Irvine and Stevenson (Mr Payne) v. Thomas M'Taggarfc (Clinton), claim £4 Bs, for goods supplied', with costs (10s); J. and 1 J. Arthur (Mr W. L. Moore) v. William Dickson (Houipapa), claim £1 17s 6d, amount of account, wi& costs (10s); Brown, Swing, and Co., Ltd. (Mr L. Jardine) v. Elizabeth Doyle (Palmersibon), claim £9 4s 4d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 lis 6d); Robert Ings (Mr Barcn) v. John Restieaux, claim £2 13s Bd, for milk supplied, with costs (lis); Robert Whitison (Mr Moore) v. Viator Metzger (Campbelltown),, claim £3, for balance of account, with costs (lis); Johnston, Sons, and Co. (Mr Scantlebury) v. Harold Hitchcock (Waikino), claim £1 2s 6d, for goods delivered, with costs (ss); John Dunlop (Mr Moore) v. Lena Collins, claim £2 2s 6d, for professional services, with costs (10s); Wise and Co., Ltd. (Me Moore), v. Walter H. Wilson (Wanganui), claim £4 4s, for goods delivered, with oositt (10s).

Margaret J. Thomson v. Rex Hardy (Green Island). —This was a case in whicti the plaintiff, who was represented by Mr Allan, sued the defendant for £3, amount of a judgment.—After hearing defendant's story an order was made for the payment of the amount in fortnightly instalments of ss, in default three days' imprisonment; D. Buchanan and Co. v. Rex Hardy.— This was a claim for £9 4s, amount of judgment summons. —After hearing the defendant the magistrate (made* an order for the payment of the amounit by fortnightly instalments of 5s each.

William Hijrginson (Mr Hawkins) v. F. Coxhead). —-This was a claim for. the, payment of £1 19s; amount of judgment summons. —Defendant stated that he was not in a position to pay as he had been' out of steady work for two years. He was a clerk by occupation, and had a wife and three children., aM the latter being under 11 years of age.—The magistrate refused to make an order.

(Thursday, December 21.) (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for the plaintiffs in the following undefended cases: —Stokes and Son (Mr Ewing) v. Duncan Cameron, claim £3 15s, for goods delivered, with costs (10s); Guthrie, Bowron, and Co. (Mr Moore) v. L. Mills and Co., claim 10s, for goods supplied, with costs (ss); R. M'Mullen and Co. v. Robert Hastie, claim £5 10s Id, for goods delivered, with costs (£1 3s 6d); Phoenix Co. (Ltd.) v. William John Harvey (Masterton), claim. £l3 3s lid, for goods supplied, with costs (15s); Ansell and Co. (Mr Moore) v. Charles Broad (Bluff), claim £ll 10s, for two suits of clothes, with costs (£l 10s 6d); Marshall's Proprietary Limited ■Mr Scantlebury) v. Wm. Joseph Owen, Ciuain £6 9s, for goods delivered, with costs (£1 3s 6d); Horn and Parcell (Mr Moore) v. E. Peterson, claim £ll lis 2d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 10s 6d; A. M. Sidey v. F. W. Mills, claim £l7, amount of promissory note, with costs (£1 10s 6d); Now Zealand Paper Mills (Ltd.) (Mr Lemon) v. William F. Leitx (Gieborne), claim £4 13s 2d, for goods sold, with costs (10s). David Bayne v. George Watt. —Claim for £1 3s 6d, amount due on a judgment summons.—Defendant did not appear, and an order was made for the payment of the amount forthwith, with costs (ss), in dofault three days', imprisonment. James Murphy (Mr Irwin) v. John Wilson.—Claim for £29 4s, amount due on a judgment summons. —Defendant did not appear, and an order was made for the payment, of the amount due, with costa (£1) forthwith, in default six weeks' imprisonment. A Stale Account. —John J. Jones (Mr Brugh) sued C. C. Marsh (Mr A. Duncan) for £4 16s 9d, for building material supplied. —Mr Brugh explained that the amount claimed was for a quantity of building material supplied to defendant on different occasions between November 26, 1906, and January 21, 1907. Plaintiff had been away from Dunedin for some time, hence the' delay in bringing the claim to court. —The defence was that a considerable! part of the account (£3 lis 6d) had been paid to plaintiff by defendant.—After hearing the evidenoe of plaintiff and defendant the Magistrate said that there could be no doubt as to the debt having been incurred. It was admitted that the goods had been, received. It seemed that there had been several transactions botween the parties, and tho defendant said that ho paid £3 lis 6d to the plaintiff at his own house. He had produced no receipt, however, and the plaintiff had absolutely denied having received that amount. The onus of proving that that payment was made lay on the defendant, whose manner in the box was such aj to give one reason to believe that h« thought ho had paid the amount mon> tioned. Whether ho had or had not wat not for a magistrate to say; proof must b» given, and at the same time it had to be remarked that the plaintiff had been very lax in the matter. He certainly had a right to sue up to six years, but he had allowed the account to become stale. A person might be put into a very awkward position through such laxity. In the circumstances judgment would be given for the plaintiff without costs.