DEBT CASES

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 2, Issue 157, 8 May 1940, Page 5

DEBT CASES

ONE DEFENDED JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT The following were judgments by default given by Mr E. L. Walton,, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday:— 1 Wheelers' Garage Ltd. v Raroa Tawa (by consent) £3 3s fid and ;£1 16s fid costs; Wheelers' Garage Ltd. v Koata Rota. £17 7s Id and £3 13s; Wheelers' Garage Ltd. v J. Patterson, 7s and 10s; Wheelers' Garage Ltd. v H. Anderson, £1 lis and J. H. Burgess v Tarua Natana, £'8 0s 3d and £1 17s 6d; James Furst v Sam Hohua, £8 lis 9d and £2 5s fid: Rose Dockray v Fred Waklen, £1 17s fid and £1 Is; Hall and Howat v E» G. Barclay, £4 15s 2d and £1 19s fi'd; N. Jaram v Rai Kapua,. £5 lis Id and £1 16s (id; F. M. Abbott v jT. Hunt, £4 19s 6d and £1 3s fid; G. S. Whiteside v Basil "Rule, £7 10s and £1 14s Gd costs, with possession ftn one month. Judgment Summons. Judgment on summons was given for S. Parkes Ltd v E. Hughes, 0s fid and 15s fid, in default eight days' imprisonment; Wheelers" Garage Ltd v G. P. Ingram, £6 10s fid,, in default six days' imprisonment, warrant to be suspended while debtor pays 10s per month. Order Refused. An order was refused in the case of Wallace Supplies Ltd v D. Jamieson. Mr G. A. Suckling appeared for the judgment creditor and recalled debtor's appearance at the Court in March, when he had stated that lie had enlisted and had been passed as fit by the Board. Mr Suckling produced a letter from the Defence Department which stated that Jamieson had not passed fit and had not been accepted. Jamieson, under examination by Mr Suckling, said he had earned £48 in the period October to April inclusive. He had two children dependent on him and he paid 10s per week rent. Case Defended. Mr G. Otley appeared for Messrs D. McL. Wallace (Whakatane) Ltd, when that company sought judgment for £6 from A. N. Scrivener, Mr Barry defended on instructions from Putaruru. .Mr Otley outlined the circumstances in which the debt was contracted. It was for additional work done on a house constructed in Salonika Street. Mr Otley said that a letter written by defendant was an admission of liability. Norman Allen Corcoran, manager of the plaintiff firm, gave evidence on the lines of coufci.sel's address. He said that when it had been found necessary to do ex-* tra work Scrivener had been advised. Defendant had called in to witness's office and authorised the work In giving judgment for plaintiff with costs the Magistrate observed that defendant had agreed to the work. That agreement constituted a contract, which had started with an offer and had been completed with the acceptance.