DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3113, 12 November 1913, Page 13

DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Thursday, October 23. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for olaintiffs in the following undefended cases: Johnston, Sons, and Co. v. Joseph James Murray (Auckland), claim £4, for a book supplied; same v. Sarah Jane Brown (Auckland:, claim £2 12s 6d, for a book supplied; same v. Harry Divohall (Bunnythorpe), claim £2 2a, for a book supplied; M’Gavin and Co. v. Ernest Joseph Chcesernan (Picton), claim £8 Is, for goods supplied; William Raynbird v. E. Stewart, John Birtles, James Christie, and Stanley Dickson, claim £3 2s 6d, for rent due; Ahlfcld Bros, and Co. v. A. Butler (Auckland), claim £4- 6a 2d. for goods supplied; Donald M'Donald v. Rex Hardy, claim £1 Oa 6d, for coal supplied; Guthrie. Bowron, and Co. v. Arthur Patchett (Blenheim), claim £l3 15s 4d, on a dishonoured cheque. Tuesday, October 28. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following casts : —Laidlaw and Gray v. James Eaton (Grey town, North Island), £23 lbs, balance on piano (costs £2 14s); Albert E. Fish v. D. M'Diarmid ffWaitati). £2 0s 6d, for goods (casts 10s); James Webster v. J. Menz.es, 19s, for shoes, etc. (costs 6s); Nathaniel Reed and Co. v. T. B. Gibb (Oarnaru), £l3 l£s 6cl for goods (costs 30s 6d); J. W. Blackwood v. Edwin 11. 'Wilson (Port Chalmers), £lO on an IOI" (costs 23s 6d); W. S. Riddell and Co. v. James Wells (Kaitangata), £l2 8s 8d (costs 30s 6d); same v. Angus Shaw (Milton), £2 16s 6d (costs 10s). Thursday, October 50. (Before Mr 11. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment for the plaintiffs by default was given in the followmg cases;--The Superintendent of Workers’ Dwellings Board v. William J. Maskei, claim ‘y, eoeis in a previous action (solic tors fee 6.'}; J. and J. Arthur v. Albert E. Hunt (Asnlnoton), claim £3 6s 6ci, balance due on clothes supplied (costs 12s); New Zealand National Mortgage Agency Company v. J. Wilson (Kelso), claim £24 11s 6d, ba’ancc on goods supplied (costs £3 4s) ; J. Braid v. J. Peterson (Port Chalmers), claim £1 Os sd, for milk supplied (costs ss); Alexander Love v. Rex Hardy, cla m £l2 5s 6d, on an account stated (costs £l 10s 6d); Donald Reid and Co. v. J. A. Finn and R. Weir (Balclutha), claim £6 12s 6d, for goods supplied (costs £1 6s 6d): G. and T. Young v. A. H. Logan (Auckland), claim £2 14s 9d, for goods supplied (costs ss); Irvine" and Stevenson’s St. George Co. v. Sibun and Kent (Pctone), claim £lO Is 6d, due on a dishonoured cheque (costs £1 10s 6d); A. and T. Burt v. J. A. Hunt (Gisborne), claim £33 17s lid, for goods supplied (costs £2 14s); Martin Pearce v. Mary Robertson, claim £2 Os 4d, half-cost of dividing fence (costs ss); D.I.C. Co. v. Mary Bradley (llakataramea), ciaim £2 3s 4d, for drapery supplied (costs 10s). *

A Reserved Judgment.—ln delivering his reserved judgment in the case of \V.il.am Hamer v. Robert Loohhead on a claim for £3O 2s, Mr Widdowson said the claim ha<t been substantiated, and judgment would bo given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs £7.

A Grazing Claim. —James Alexander (Mr Brugh) sued Thomas Hastio (Mr B. S. Irwin) for the recovery of £4, being the amount owing by the defendant to the plaintiff for grazing a horse for 4G weeks at Is 9d per week. —The claim was disputed on the ground that the horso was owned by the defendant’s father, who had since died, and the account should have been a charge against the deceased's estate.—The evidence of James Alexander, jun., and two other witnesses was heard in support of the claim, and that of the defendant against it. —The Magistrate said the plaintiff would bo nonsuited, without costs, on the ground that he was not satisfied the defendant was the right person to sue. J. and A. Wilkinson (Mr Moore) proceeded against the Fernhill Coal and Sand Company (Mr A. C Hanlon) on a claim for £2 15s for two brick moulds. —The claim was disputed by the defendants on the grounds that the charge was exorbitant.— Evidence f or the plaintiff went to show that £1 14« 6c'. had been paid for brass work done to the moulds, and the balance represented the cost of woodwork. —For the de-

fence witnesses were called, who stated that the brass work done was not necessary, and that in consequence the moulds were too costly.—The Magistrate said the heavy items came under the heading of the engineer’s bill, and if the engineer had put in extraordinary work, which he could not understand was necessary, then the defendant should not pay for it.—Judgment would be entered for £1 5s (costs £1 os 6d). Tuesday, November 4. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs, by default, in the following cases: —Peter Eraser v. Charles Conroy, claim £3 12s 6d, balance due on account stated (costs 10s); W. S. Eeddell and Co. v. Edward Quinn, claim £3 ss, goods supplied (ecsts 10s); Ahlfeld Bros, and Go. v. Henry Arnott (Napier), claim £2 12s Bd, goods supplied (costs £1 4s); J. Edwin Smith v. Alexander M’Cullough (Tisbury), claim £23 8s 6d, amount due on account stated (costs £2 9-s); Oocmbea and Kiddle v. John Reid (Mataura', claim £2 3s, goods supplied (costs 10s); Peter Fraser v. Joseph Walker, claim £l6 Os 2d, amount due on account stated (costs £1 10s 6d); Gaudin and Marr v. Murdoch M'Leod (Lumsden), claim 15a, goods supplied (costs ss); Stronach, Morris, and Co. v. C. R. Robinson (Lovell’s Flat', claim £l3 11s, balance due (costs £1 18s); A. S. Paterson and Co. v. Archibald Clark (Outram), claim £44 14s Bd, balance duo on goods supplied (costs £3 Is). Dredge Damages.—Jcsiah Pierce Lane (for whom Mr Calvert- appeared) sought to recover £4O from George Waugh Telford Campbell, of Alexandra, dredge hand, rent of orchard land occupied by him.— The facts of the case were that Campbell leased an orchard from Lane in June, 1912, and in September Lane’s man informed the defendant, that they were going to dredge away the land. In March Lane took possession of the, newer orchard, which was subsequently all dredged away except about four acres of isolated corners. The point in dispute was as to how much of the rent could be claimed, seeing that so much had been dredged.-—Mr A. S. Adams, who appeared ior defendant, argued that the case was one in which the Warden’s Court had exclusive jurisdiction, and, further, that it was not competent for the holder of a miner’s license to grant a lease for purposes of cultivation. He also contended that the matter ought to be referred to arbitration, as provided in the lease, and that in any event no rent could be recovered until the lessor had computed the area required for dredging, and that as this had never been done the action must fail. —Mr Calvert replied to those legal aspects of tne case, and his Worship ;e----served his decision. Thursday, November 6. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases:—P. M‘Skimming and Son v. C. D. M‘Connell and Co. (Mataura), £7 10s, for goods (costs- 25s 6d); Wright, Stephenson, and" Co. v. Bede Collins (Palmerston), £4B 7s, for goods (costa £3 7s); W. J. P. M'Culloch v. Frank E Don (Hcriot), £3l 3s 6d, for goods (costs £3"2s); Gaudin and Marr v. Henry Wright (Mosgicl), £2 5s sd, for goods (costs 10s).