CIVIL BUSINESS

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 909, 31 August 1910, Page 3

CIVIL BUSINESS

(Before Mr. W. E: Hoselden, S.AI.) ■ ' I ; UNDEFENDED .CASES. Judgment by default .was given fo* plaintiffs in the following undefended cases:—Hutt County Council v. Alfred Bengc," '£11 Us. id., .costs ,£1 16s. Gd.; same v# Peter Dickson, «£2 19s. 3d., costs 10s.; Wellington Publishing Company, Ltd., v. William H. fleytvood, e£2 10s., costs 55.; Joseph Nathan and Co., Ltd., v. Bertram Cooper,. £1 15.:5 d., costs 155.; New Zealand State Guaranteed Advances Office Superintendent v. Robert Henry Houghton, oCIO 10s., costs lGs.; Cadbury Brothers,... Ltd., v. W. H. Whiteside, 35.» costs 25.; House, Black and Son v. John Barton, .£9.25., costs <£1 3s. Gd.; T. Beadnail and Son v. James Stevenson, .£2B lis. 65., costs £2 Us.; Kenneth Pinlayson v. Alfred Styles, .£2 95., costs 10s.; Arthur Bolton v. Eva Matilda Lepper, <£2 13s. 3d., costs 10s.; Drapery and General Importing Co. of New Zealand, Ltd., v. James Tulloch, ,£ll 15s. 3d., costs «£! 10s. Gd.; G. H. Colegrove v. George Bishop, £3 19s. 4d.,' costs 10s.; Walter Julius Jorgenscn v. John Dalton, .£lB 19s. 2d., costs oßllos. Gd.; Bernard Ilall v. Ernest Christie, £5 155., costs jCI 3s. Gd.; Walter M'ln tosh v. Matthew Atkinson, «£2 15s. Bd.j costs 135.; H. Price and Co., Ltd., v. Hodgkinson and Fa inn, <£20 19s. Gd., costs' £2 lis.; Arthur Bolton v. William Mackie, «£2 2s. «id., costs 10s.; William Ilonry James v. Jesse Tuilc Eiiilay, «£5 15s. Bd.> costs 135.; S. W. Cope v. George Welling, jun.,'i£2B lis., costs *C 2 ITs. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Richard Light was ordered to pay <£1 Hs. to J. Smith' and Co. on or beforo September 13, 1910, in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment. James Woods was ordered to pay <£9 18s. -id.' to Herbert Pricc on or before September 13, 1910, in.default nine days imprisonment. \ In the'case of Stewart Timber, Glass, and Hardware Company, Ltd., v. William Allaway, a claim for <Cf> 18s. Bd., defendant was ordered to pay the amount on or beforo September 27, in default six days' imprisonment. • _ . No order was mado in the caso of Wellington Loan Company, Ltd., y. falter 1 Launder, a claim for .£l7 Bs. 3d.

TU.K. PRICK OF. BHICKS.. , Edward liusseli--M'lieati Dymock, receiver lor the debenture holders' of t cter Hubson and Co., Ltd., l.rack manufacturer*:, of iVellingtoii, claimed cC-18 I«>s. ou. from .Ta»\es Hull Kenny, contractor, ot IS Nairn Street', "Wellington, for goods stated to have been supplied to'the- defendant by Peter llutson and Co. t Air. H. Ft. Evans appeared for the planum anil, Mr. P. Jackson for the* defendant. It appeared that the. sum of ,£4-:/s. on. had been paid by .defendant, leaving the j a«m of «£5 JBs. in dispute. ' For the defence it was contended that j plaintiffs had charged a price m excess? of that agreed upon in the contract lor delivery. Plaintiffs contention was that, iu April las!', brickmakers raised the price of bricks and that defendant was well aware of the advanced. .P ric, J. . . After hearing argument, his Worship reserved decision until Thursday. A "WAITRESS'S WAGES: Margaret Colebv, waitress, sued Edwin Charles Polkinghorne, boardinghouse-. i keeper, of Clifton Terrace, lor 1/s., al- , leged balance of wages due. Mr. A. HHindmarsh appeared for plaintifi aud I Mr. Wi Arnold was for defendant, who ; counter-claimed damage H « havo been sustained through pnuiinn leaving his employment without giving due notice. , ~, , . Plaintiff, in evidence, staled that sue had been engaged as a waitress at 155.a week, aud left at the end of tile fouith week' after giving 48 hours notice. . For the- defence it was contended that seven days' notice should have been_ and that the plaintiff did not quite complete the fourth week. • His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for'l7s., with.costs lis. . | - . WANTED, A RECEIPT. 'Wi and G. Tnrnbnll and Co. sued Wra. Arthur D'Oridant for •£-> 13s. 3ld. for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendant in 1303. Mr. appeared for plaintiffs. . Defendant stated that, after receiving the goods, he had called and pa"l the account, and was to have got a receipt by post, but it had never arrived. U was too long ago'to remember the cleikto whom the money was paid. His Worship remarked that the onus 6f-proof of payment was on defendant, and ill the absence of a receipt must he given for plaintift for tho amount claimed. 1