R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3746, 26 February 1891, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

£" MASTJEBTON—THURSDAY. [Before Colonel Roberts, R.M.] Civil. R. F. Temple v G. Bentley. Claim for cost of summons on which judgment had been given. Judgment for plaintiff." M. Kelliber v F. Huxtable. Claim for 19s, amount alleged to have been overpaid for expenses as a witness. Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant. Maurice Kelliber, sworn, stated that.he had had a case at Eketahuna in whiek Huxtable was supposed to a witness. Huxtable had not'appeared, but had been paid 29s 6d for expenses which only amounted to 10s 9d. He therefore claimed a refund of 19a. By Mr Beard: Huxtable had agreed to take £1 for his two trips to Eketahuna, and a cheque for this amount had been given him in Mr Pownall's office. . ' BV : ;H. Eton, a law clerk in the employ -of Mr'Pownall, deposed that had applied to him for his Expenses in the case-of. Wallace v. Kelliber, • He had not given them, but had jaid : him 5a and given him a railway ticket when he went to Eketahuna oh a second' occasion. By .Mr Beard: ; Had received inBtractipns.from Mr Pownall to send Huxtable up, C; A* Pownall, sworn, deposed that Kelfiher'had-paia Huxtable £1 by his instructions, and Huxtable had afterwards received 5s and a railway ticket from his clerk. : .. ■: As the defendant was not present the ease was adjourned,* by consent, till iiexfc Court day. Hospital Trustees v. Geo. O'Brien. Claim, ,'£l9, for maintenance. Mr Bunny fpr'< plaintiff, Mr Pownall for defendant, judgment for amount and costs? A"f \ I- (\ p Rossand Muirv £>. Donald. Claim, £2l 19s 9d, for work. and labor done, and £U iOs*fdr ! a'Solway wool press. MrjPpwnaU for plaintiffs, Mr Beard for defendant. Mr Pownall stated that £l3 2s 3d on the first claim and £8 on the second had been confessed.JamesJEtoss,. sworn, statedthatthe work ana- labour 'mentioned - in- the bill of particulars, for which £2l 19s 9d had been claimed, had been done by his firmiry instructions fronr Mr Donald. The prices were fair and reasonable and the amount was still due anipwing._ The amount charged for the Sbiway wool press (£li iOs) wasireasonable. The same presses were being sold in Melbourne at £22, press was' not a "Sbiway;": They .understood Mr ; Donald intended', taking 'it to Mel 7; bourne toexhibit it. !l; A press made for exhibition was not necessarily a 0~ sample one. Did not expect to get any orders frbnVAustralia in consequence of the press made for Mr Donald,, .There was nothing said about the prices., .whatever. It their ueual practioe to charge an inventor the same price as. an: outsider. They charged their agents less than they did the inventor. James Muir and William Smith

gave corroborative evidence. rA., if. P.,;. Hatha ; way deposed: to having .made out and ; posted the account. •■...;■ ' / "This was the case for the plaintiffs The Court -was thefl adjourned till 2.Bo o'clock. -'•'. " ' ' '"'■'.