NEW PLYMOUTH S.M. COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8068, 27 March 1906, Page 3

NEW PLYMOUTH S.M. COURT.

At Monday's sitting of the New Plymouth S.M Court, jtylgniont by default was given iu the following eases: Commissioner of Crown Lands (Mr W. Kerr for plaintiff) v. S. Sckultz, Tongiiporutu, rent £l7 2s, costs £2 15s (id; L. W. Alexander (Mr Geo. Grey) v. Emily Reunion, claim £ls, costs £1 Ills (id (defendant's separate estate); Or A. E. Walker (Mr T, S, Weston) v. James Xivoll, Auckland, claim £3 3s, costs 10s; William F, MuAlhjni (Mr Quilliam) v, James Purdie ; claim £5 12s Id, costs £1 3s 6d; Harris Ford (Mr Malone) y. Oscar Mullcr, claim £lO S)s, costs £]. Os fid ; Mrs A, Wright (Mr Frank Wilson for plaintiff) v. Ernest Bullot, claim £-1, Us, costs 10s; Lionel Jacob (Mr Frank Wilson) v, Mrs Caroline A. Wilson, of Mokati,' claim £2A Is 4d, costs £1 IDs, immediate execution granted; (J, H. Lind. strom and Co. (Mr F. Wilson) 'v, James Purjlie, claim £U IDs 2d, costs 1 £1 3s (id. ; ■

William 'M,Perry v.'H. Wilson, claim for ,1)2 7s (id (Mr (r, Grey for plaintiff). The plaintiff, a saddler, had supplied goods to defendant's son, who was working a small farm at Bell Block for his father. The defendant stated that he had given no authority to get the goods, but admitted the son had the full management of flic farm, mid that tlip goods must have been obtained fop defoliant's own horses. The S,M, sivid that there was no defence, and gave jndgnicnl for tlio amount, with 111 12s'costs, Officii!,! Assignee in Richmond's estate v. Charles Hansen ami others, claim £52 l'Js (id. Mr Filzhevbcil, for the plaintiff, intimated that two of the defendants had paid £3O oil the claim, and had been released from further liability. Judgment was given against the remaining defculaut, Hansen. for the balance, £22 IDs lid, with costs £2 lis.

ijr T. HutcUison, S.M.. gave judgment oh Monday ii| tl|e case James Smith v. Robt. Cleuiow, dairy fanner, of Omata, a claim for till lis for services rendered. Mr (juilliam apjfCiltetl for jilaintilT and Mr Roy for defendant. After review ing the facts, the Magistrate thought the claim of £(i per wock was in the circumstances preposterous.' Taking into consideration the possession of the premises sin e the agreement formerly existing terminated, he thought £1 per week a fair p.iyment Toivthe occasional milking done by plmitilV's family since the introduction of the milking machines. On this basis, and adding £5 for one week allowed by the defendant, the sum due was £l7, less tX 5s (id paid into Court. Judgment, with costs, was (!i)ti.Tpd apcprdinglv. The defendant's I'Quntcr.flaiin for possession of - tl|e house was allowed (by consent) ono week's notice to be givon from date.