DEFAULT CASES.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14841, 5 December 1913, Page 3

DEFAULT CASES.

(Before Mr H. W. Bishop. S.M.)

Judgment by default was entered for plaintiffs with costs in the following cases:—Massey Harris Co. (Mr Wright) v, W. T. Archer, £16 16s 6d; J. H. Tompkins (Mr Taylor) v. H. A. H. Cross, 13s 9d; Alfred Burgess (Mr Wright) v. S. 3>. Chile. £10 13s 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Reid and* Gray (Mr Ward) claimed from R. F. Spensley the sum of £157 6s Id. Judgment debtor, stated that he was in possession of a Kaikoura farm of 250 acres, which he valued at £20 an acre. There were mortgages on the property amounting to about £17 an acre, leaving an equity of £750. He had been unable, however, to get that price, and had endeavoured to effect an exchange on a £23 an acre basis. The magistrate advisfed the defendant to get the whole business fixed up. rather than attempt to carry on the farm under such conditions. No order would be made. . ' REPAIRS TO A CAR. A. W. Smith (Mr Lyon) claimed from Maria Newman (Mr Beattie) the sum of £6 3s lid for repairs to a motorcar.

A. Smith, son of tho plaintiff, deposed that the driver of defendant's car came to their garage, and left the car thero for painting. The driver also instructed them to effect certain repairs. Afterwards defendant denied that tho driver was in her employ. Subsequently she admitted that he was in her employ, but had no authority to have the work done. It was usual to effect repairs to cars under instructions from the drivers, and without authority from the owners. Defendant stated that she had given "u 601 ! 3 ] insfcr -ctions that the engine should not be repaired. She had signed a contract for the painting, and authorised minor repairs which should only have cost 6d. Judgment was given for 7s Bd, with costs on that amount. * ' A JEWELLER'S CLAIM. Mohammed Din (Mr Raphael) sued - £<*. • PoU - rd ( Mr Lyons) for the cum or £9 10s, being the value of goods sold and delivered. Mohammed Din stated that ho had .i i. an order from defendant for a gold albert chain at £6 10s, and a clock at _•_.. The goods were delivered. Afterwards defendant's wife asked for credit, and he allowed three months' time in which to pa y the debt. Arthur Ernest Pollard (defendant) said he first met plaintiff at Hororata. Win asked him what he would charge to run him and a case of whisky up to Lake Coleridge, Witness, a m-ilrnan, went to the local hotel with Din where they had a drink. Din took out witnesss watch, and fastened the gold chain to it. When witness got home, he said to his wife: "Din gave mc that if I would run him up to Lake Colendge." Hie wife replied: "Have nothing to do with it; return it at once." He was quite willing to take the clock, but not the chain, for which he could not afford to pay. Witness sought an opportunity to return the chain, and finally posted it to Din. The magistrate said the evidence -was no answer to the claim. Defendant had allowed hiroself to be made a fool of, and he had not a scrap of sympathy with people in the country who went and bought "rubbishy stuff off these men." Judgment would be for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs. IN DOUBT. Graham, Wilson and Smellie (Mr Vincent) claimed from Patrick Crooke the sum of 17s 4d, value of goods delivered. . Defendant denied having received the goods, and judgment waa accordingly ontered against the plaintiffs. The magistrate refused defendant's

application for costs, on tha gronnd that there was a doubt in the case.