FEILDING COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8784, 11 April 1907, Page 2

FEILDING COURT.

Ling Lum Keo was charged at Feildiug Court yesterday, on the in 1 , formation of the Inspector of Ear;--toms. with-cbinmitting two lipaphps of the Shops and Offices Act "on the 33rd March. The.first charge was c| selling goods after hours, the second was for employing an assistant after hours. The defence was that the goods were ordered before the hour of closing and were called for after closing time. It was also contended that the assistant was a partner. The first charge was held over and a fine of £l, with 30s costs, im; posed on the second, Roderick Sheehy' (Mr Moore) v. Kirton and Curtis (Mr Sandilands), claim £o 17s, Defendant pleaded tlia Stacie of Limitations for all but £1 Cs, which was paid into Court. Jq explaining the case Mr Moore stated that Kirton and Curtis had sold their book debts to Pirani and Co,, who had sued. Sheehy lor the amount ( thereupon Sheehy sited Kirton Piut Onrtis for £5 17s, Air Sandilands ex. plained that Kirton and Curtis had given Pirani and Go, the power of attorney and Pirani had brought an action against Sheehy. The latter had failed to nut in lus counter

claim, had lie done so the matter would have been fixed up without the statue being pleaded. The S.M. said it? was hard on Slicelry, bu t thp matter would havejto stand, The crisi was adjourned till next Court day. T. H. Giles (Mr Sandilands) v. Mrs S. Douglas (Mr Graham), claim £5 13s 3d and counter claim for £8 4s sd. The plaintiff was non-suited on his claim and £8 Is was allowed on the counter claim. No costs were allowed-. - Jane Lowe v, W. J. Lowe. This was an application for a separation by the wife on the grounds of wilful neglect of herself and children. The case was held over for four weeks. v

Judgment was given for plaintiff in the following cases:—James Ransom v. W. E. Young, claim £23 13s 7d, costs 275, solicitor’s fee 31s; E, A. Ransom v. J. E. McKay., claim £33 15a fid, costs S2s, solicitor’s fee 81s | A. D, Skelly v, O, A. Solomon, pla'iu £l3, costs 15s, solicitor's fee ISs fid; Pellding Borough Council v. P, Spiers, claim £1 15s 4d, costs 8s; Amesbury Bros. v. Carroll Bros., claim 19s (amount had been paid into Court and judgment was given for 10s costs); W. H. Hall v. P. . Jenkins, claim £3 11s, costs 15s, solicitor’s fee ss; H. W. P. Holbrook v. Robert Harper, claim for costs, amount of claim having been paid into Court, judgment was given for costs 10s, solicitor’s' fee ss; De Lueu Bros. v. Richard Drummond, Claim £2 12s fid, costs 7s, solicitor’s fee os; S. M. D, Lockhead v. D. Laing, juu., claim £2O 9s fid, costs 83s, solicitor’s fee 81s. Judgment summonses ; T. O. Fowler and Co. v. J. Crichton, claim £1 4s.—Amount to be paid forthwith, or in default three days in Wanganui gaol; Hoult and Sou v. David “Roe, claim £l6 9s 2d.—To be paid forthwith, in default 14 days in Napier gaol. Order to be suspended provided debtor pays £4 at once and £4 per month.