S.M. COURT.—YESTERDAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 36, 11 February 1905, Page 7

S.M. COURT.—YESTERDAY.

(Befor<> Mr S. K. McCarthy. S.M.) Judgment snmmons orders were inadr as follow:—F. and W. Fowler v. G. W Graham (Devonport): Debtor ordered to pay £6 8/3. Walter Smith v. Walter ,Henry Flatt: Debtor ordered to pay £S 10/, the order being suspended so long as debtor pays 10/ per raoDtU. Walter Smith v. Walter Henry Flatt: Debtor ordered to pay £10 16/TJ, the order being suspended so long as debtor pays 10/ per month. Jud,?ment for the Plaintiff.—His Worehip, in Firing judgment in fhe cast: of .1 A. Bock "v. l>. Bock, claim for £25 damages for trespaes nntl the wrongful removal nf certain labels vaiued at £10 10/11, suit] it was -clear from the correspondence and tbe evidence chnt the plaintiff and the defendant had agreed to dissolve partnership aud without any form of settlement to apportion rertnin of the partnership assets to each of the partners. Mi- Parrel! was appointed by tne parties to act for the defendant, in this apportionment, which was duly made, the assets apportioned to the plaintiff hovijiK been removed by him to his resilience of. Mount Eden, where he now carries on business. The defendant entered ■on the residence without license or authority from the plaintiff and removed therefrom certain of tho partnership assets wMch had been apportioned to the plaintiff or the value of £58 r>/7A. Although this Conrt bas no jurisdiction in disputes between partners relating to partnership affairs, vet where, .as here, there has been a dissolution and ti partial apportionment and delivers<>f assets, the assets so apportioned and delivered become the separate properly of the partner to whom possession lias been given The defendant's entry on the plaintiff's residence and the removal of tho ;roods apportioned and delivered to the plaintiff were therefore. wholly without JnstffiraUoii.' Judgment was given for the plaintiff for i.1!), together with costs, £3 11/ , A Milk Vendor"? Coinp:alnt.~A claim for £30 3/4 for milk supplied was bre n »™t by T , - ■, u ?, lrt (Mr Bau «Je) against .loUn JV^ 1 ( ¥ r A eotmter claim for i-.ino damages was brought by j>!"b apaiiist McQnofd, for an alleged breach of the contract for the supply' of the milkIn stating the ease Mr Brookfield said linii McQuoirl had entered into a contract to supply milk to Leiffh. who supplied if to - his customers. Complaints came In fro-i finio to time about the quality of tiiimilk, wiiieli was, according to Leigh net coaled properly. This state of"titim,"* continued, and Hβ a result Leigh lost roanr ofhis customers, and now made ;■ claim for "damages against 'McQuoid for an allced breach of the terms of the contract Tin' defendant (Leigh) admitted the amount set forth in the claim, and the evidence taken dealt with the coiJnter claim. Thf> hearing of the evidence was not completed wb»n the Court rose, nud the further hearing was adourned until Friday nest