R.M. COURT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8399, 13 February 1894, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

Monday, Fiubtjaby 12. (Before Mr C. C. Kettle, R.M.) After we went to prees yesterday the following defended cases were heard :— Allan and others v. Khodes Bros. The defence to this action was that plaintiff entered into a contract to clear the whole 30 acres, and having failed to do so had broken and nullified tho contract. His Worship held that opinion and non-suited plaintiffs ■with coßts 3s, witnesses' expenees 11b 4d, and counsel's fee 10j 6d. p. p. Perry v. Wirihana Hunia, claim £16. Judgment by consent for £4 Is Bd, costs 20s, interpretation fee 6s, counsel's fee 10s 6d, and witnesses, 28s lOd. T. D. Cummins v. Pango Tukia, claim f44 2s sd, on promissory noto given by defendant on behalf of her son, W. Trafford. Judgment reserved. Annie Hogg v. F. Bull, claim £1 13s 3d for goods supplied. The defence was that defendant was a minor. Judgment was givea for defendant on this ground, the B.M. advisiDg him, for his reputation's sake, to make an effort to pay the account. Same v. Mrs P. McGrath, claim £22 10s Id. £& 7s 4i was admitted, the balance having been supplied and debited to.Bull. liability was denied, although plaintiff averred that defendant had verbally accepted the responsibility. Judgment for £5 7s 4d with 16s 6d costs. , . . , - *<, W. S. Dustin v. T. Avmgton, claim £3 8s 2d. Defendant stated that the goods were not delivered when ordored, and con■eqnently wore useless. He 4 however, retained them. Judgment for amount claimed with 6b costs.