SUPREME COURT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXIV, Issue 12734, 1 April 1909, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honor, Mr Justice Sim.) CODY V. '10TH. Tho action' of Joseph Cody v. Eobert Roth, both of Ohalcune, and both erst while resident* of Wanganui, a proceeding to declare the .plaintiff a partner of defendant's in respect of 6ome land at Ohakune, was concluded at the Court yesterday, his Honor reserving judgment. The evidence for the defence was given by defendant and Edward. Jackson. GADSBY V. BLAKE. This case was begun' yesterday afternoon. It was an action brought by William Gadsby, farmer, of Manntahi, against Err-f«t P. Blake, late of the U.I. Butter" Factory, WaveVley, asking 'the Contt to order that d^ndarif supply, ah'aV count of all his ' aiealings \nth' .plaintiff, under a milk agreement'/ to^lieE6gistrat of the Supreme Court, turiTilA'.'Jijr «» monies owing. Plaintiff (who was .reprS-' 6ented by Mr Hutchison) clairited that by an agreement entered into with defendant, he agreed to supply the latter with the milk from his dairy, defendant to manufacture the butter fat, and sell the butter to the best account, a- charge per lb. being made for manufacturing same, also 17 per cent, of the over run being retained by defendant. Under the agreement plaintiff supplied 20,422 lbs of but-ter-fat, from September, 1906, to July, 1907. He repeatedly, he claimed, applied for statements of his account, but these were not forwarded. ' , The defence was 'a ddnial of any agreement, the statement' of defence stating that no butter-fat was received on defendant's behalf, from plaintiff, at any time. , In evidence plaintiff stated that defendant opened a branch of the U.L Waverley factory at Manutahi, and plaintiff, partly to help Blake, and partly to suit himself, supplied the creamery instead of the Kakaramea factory, of which he was a shareholder. He admitted that he did not sign any agreement, a verbal agreement that he was ' to be paid equal to what he would have been receiving at the Kakaramea factory being arranged. He also . admitted receiving' a, number of monthly accounts of the position, which he did not dispute. The case was practically a test one, on which others depended, and plaintiff was equally responsible, with the other suppliers, for the casts of the case, should there be any. Mr Dalziell (Wellington) with Mr Hut'chison appeared for plaintiff. Thin ease wpa concluded last evening, his Honor reserving judgment. On the Court resuming at 10 this morning Mr Treadwell, for defendant, mentioned the case, BRADLEY v. COLLIER. This action, held over from the puvioAis sitting, was an action for .£SOOO damages for breach contract. Mr Treadwell stated that plaintiff, through his solicitor, had informed him that he could not «n on with the trial of the case, owing to some different arrangements being entered into, and he (Mr Treadwell) asked that judgment be given dismissing the action. There being no appearance of plaintiff or a representative, the Court dismissed the ssuo. E. P. BLAKE v. ASSIGNEE AND J. A. E. AND JOHN RENDELL. This was a claim by Ernest P. Blake, Waverley, against the above defendants, to recover possession, of a farm at Waverley, leased by him tQ.jT- A. E. Rendell.and also to recovery a.rfcesr/3.01. rent' and tu-m-ages. Mr Dauiell (Wellington), with Mr Hutton, appears for plaintiff, and Mr Hutchison for defendants Rendell. Tho case is proceeding. RENDELL v. BARTON AND BLAKE. This case, an action brought by J. A. E. Rendell (farmer, Waverley) against C. A. Barton (Clerk District Court) and E. P. Blake (lessor of defendant's farm) for a writ of mandamus and an injunction, has been htruck off the list. ROLLO v. LIENEWEBER. This issue, an action for specific performance of transfer of a section and dam*>g<?s, will not be heard this sitting, not l«icg ready for trial. ALEX J. TOWGOOD v. Wl. Cr. UG AND W. PINCHES. This action, in which i>loo damages and an injunction ai*e claimed, has licph adiourned till the next sitting of the Court here. NIKA WAIATA AND OTHERS v. gregor McGregor. This case, an originating summons und^r the Declaratory Judgments Act, has 1 ecu removed to the Court of Appeal. APPEALS. The Court has yet to hear three appeal cases, the first of which will be that of the King v. the Canterbury Steamship Compjjny, the Crown being the appellant. One of the other two appeals will be Dickson v. Abraham and Williams, Ltd.