JUDGMENT SUMMONSES

Hutt News, Volume 2, Issue 36, 13 February 1930, Page 10

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES

, On a judgment summons G.._Duaean was ordered'to pay D. Andrews £4/16/6 by February 10th; in default live days' imprisonment; G. Duncan to pay J. E. Cave £1/14/6 by February 10th m de^fault two days' imprisonment; M. C. MeNabb to pay A. J. .George £43/10/6 at the Tate of £1 per week in default 30 days' imprisonment; A. A. Wallacd to pi^y Masoii Bros, lAd . £*5/S/7 ibrthwith, in . 'default ' -sev?n d«yß' imprisonmeiit; A. A. Wallace to .pay J. .Barbery £a/l/6 forthwith-ia default two/days *iraprisonment; A. Gar-_

nerto pay Hutt Meat Co. Lta. £7/11/6. at the rate of 3/9 per week in default .eight days' imprisonment; J. Whittaker to pay T. Waugh and Son £8/9/7 forthwith in default days/ "imprisonment; G. StannaTd. to pay E. McDonald £4/9/10 forthwith in. default 9 days' imprisonment; William Cobb to pay M. J. Clune £14/8/- forthwith in default, 14 days' imprisonment; J. ELernan to pay Wellington Ladies* Christian Association £5/1/6 at the rate of 2/6 per week in default 5 days' imprisonment;, A. Garner to pay: A. S. Cooper .£5/13/:

at the rate of 3/9 per week inoiefault 6 days* imprisonment; B, A. Gough to payi *JD. C. Motors £4/9/10 at the fate of 5/per week in default £ye days' imprison-' ; ment; L. GofEey to pay Leonard ClaTke£l6/V5 at the ?ate of 10/- per week in default 16 days' imprisonments-. In a, defended action W. H. Bailey '(Mr Wv B. Bainey) proceeded against George AHman (Mr G. Pindlay) for

£24/9/6 allegedly due for- ; plumbing word done. The Magistrate summ-.a? up said that he was not satisfied with the evidence as. it had been deduced in the Court. The dispute had arisen because the parties liad not put their agreements in written form. He would accordingly nonsuit the plaintiff >ndi allow the de*

fendant 15/- costs, 15/- for witness expenses and £3/3/- for counsel's fee. Ward and Rawnsley Ltd. (E. F. Rothwell) garage proprietors, proceeded against H. Taylor (G. Findlay) for £10/10/- alleged to be due for Storage of a motor truck, judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, | !. £10/10/-, the Magistrate holding there was an implied- contract for payment, of the storage fee. On a counter-claim for the alleged removal of tools from the truck while it was in the garage, judgment was given for?the defendant^ Taylor, for W/-. . -