S.M. COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXII, Issue 193, 4 September 1900, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

Monday, September 3.—Before Mr. E. L. Standford, S.M. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. W. A. Collis v. Christchureh Engraving Company; claim, XI and costs ss. New Plymouth Sash and Door Company v. Xemoa; claim, £29 and costs £2 14s, Mr. Quilliam for the Company. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. K. Cock and Son v. A. Cummins. Order for 10s per month. His Worslrp refused two other applications for orders. DEFENDED CASES. T. Mills v. W. Briscoe. This was a [ claim for ,£1 Is for pjundage fees. Mr. Kerr, who appeared for the plaintiff, explained that there was an informality in the summons, which was due to the plaintiff himself having taken it out. The case was struck out. Mr. Quilliam appeared for the defendant. A DISPUTE AS TO PIGS AND BACON. F. W. Walters v. A. Drake. The amount claimed was £l 18s 4d, and arose out of transactions between the parties, which were as follows : —The plaintiff supplied the defendant with a number of pigs on February 22nd, and one of these was condemned owing to a mark on its back. The pig after being rejected was cured for the plaintiff. When sent in it weighed 1951b5., and the amount of bacon returned was 761bs. instead of 1201b5., which plaint ff considered he ought to ge*. For the defence it was contended that the rejected pig was diseased, and Mr. J. W. Deem, Stock Inspector, was called to give evidence on the point. As to the difference in weight, the defendants manager stated that the portion of the pig in dispute that was marked with a scar was cut off and thrown away. The gross weight was 1931b5.; the loss on the dead weight would be 27i, while the usual allowance for bacouing was 17| per cent. His Worship considered the evidence was against the plaintiff and gavo udgment for the defendant with costs £2 9s 2d. Mr. Weston appeared for the defendant. A POTATOE CONTRACT. i John Morrison (of Okiawa) v. Mrs, M. A. Clarke, storekeeper, New Plymouth. This was a claim for ,£l2, for five tons of potatoes sold by the plaintiff to the defendant on terms of delivery, whereby two tons were to be 'delivered on June 11th or thereabouts, and the remainder on August Ist. It appeared that the first instalment was, owing to delay by the Kailway Department, 12 days late, and thereupon the defendant refused to take delivery, the goods being still at the railway shed. .After hearing the evidence on both sides and lengthy arguments on the points of law raised, His Worship reserved his decision. Mr. Kerr apI peared for the plaintiff and Mr. Wes- | ton for the defendant.