R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2941, 4 July 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

CARTERTON-TUESDAY,

(Before Mr Von Sturmor, R.M.)

■. R. J. Kells v. James Heyriok. Mr Middleton for complainent, Mr Beardfor defendant. This was a case in which tlie com-, plainaut sued defendant to show causo why he (the defendant) refused to givo a proper stamped receipt for monies which he had received on account ,of rent of a farm occupied by complainant belonging to defendant at Wailiakekei After a good deal of conflicting evidence had been given, the information was dismissed, • ' ■ 'v.

• VW, H. Hostings: v. B, Crawford, Judgment summons for debt, £24 1-ls lid,Hr Beard for plaintiff,. Mr Middleton for defendant.. Ordered to pay,3os a month, in default fourteen days' imprisonment., ■ . T, Bennett v. Equitable Insurance Company of New Zealand. Mr Middleton for plaintiff, Mr Bnnny, for the defendant Company. In this case plaintiff sued tho Company for the costs £lolos, which lie had incurred in preparation of plans for the re-erection of the Town. Hall, Carterton. PlaintiS deposed that Mr Buird, on behalf of the Company instructed him to prepare plans for the "rebuilding of the Hall as the Company intended to rebuild jt, He had the plans prepared, by Mr ■ JJaigh,. of Masterton,- and handed them to Mr Baird, He had applied to tbe Company for payment, but the Company had not paid it nor thought fit to answer his letter. 6. A. JFairbrother deposed that he accompanied Mr Baird to the house of plaintiff and recollected some conversation about plans for rebuilding tho Town Hall. " ' .. i

To thev Court: The way in l which Mr Baird spoke of a sketch plan I did not take it as a direct order, for a plan to be prepared. J. D, Baird deposed tlmt ho was the resident agent in Wellington of the Equitable Insurance .Company of New Zealand. He recbinnionded coining to Carterton on behalf of the Company to see about re-instating the Town Hal!, which had been destroyed by firo. Ho wont'to the House of the plaintiff in company with Mr Woltero, and remembered something proposed of some alterations in the plan, and which he (witno3s) stated there would be no objections toso long as itdid not exceed tlio amount insured for, hut ho did "not authoriso any expense to be incurred preparing plans, Judgment for defendant with costs L 4 4s. fi. Fairbrother v, J, Hopwood.— Debt, £l2 lis 3d, judgment by default for amount, and 24s costs, Tarntalii-Cartortoii Road Board v. M. Kyan, rates, £3 5a 8d j judgment by default for amount and 7s costs. K. J. Kells v, James Meyrick, Mr Beard for defendant, This was a case in which plaintiff claime.d compeuBatiou from the defendant for wrongfully putting a bailiff in possession cf his premises, by which tbeplnintiffhad been debarred from securing other properties, which he was in treaty for, previous to the action of tlio defendant, Plaintiff was non-suited with costs, £1 Is 6d,