(Before J. E. Macdonald, Esq., R.M.) JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. Win. Wilson v. A. Brett; claim £12, board and lodging; costs £1 lls.~F. G. Clayton v. H. Maynard; £2 18s, balance of acccount; costs 149. —J. Levy v. Wm. L. (Rogers ; £6 10s lOd, clothing ; costs £1 17s (Mr Dufaur lor plaintiff).—Eric Craig V. James Halliday; £1 5s 6d, balance tor rent; costs 12s; Harker v. Harding and another; £30 8s 3d (Mr Alexander for plaintiff); "confessed, — Hall v. Price.; £3 5s sd, groceries. Mr Thome accepted judg ment for £2 10s 4d ; costs £1 2s 6d.—Green v. Harkins, recovery of tenement. No appearance of plaintiff,—Brown, Barrett and Co. v. Gripple and Lorenzi, £13 14s Sd; costs £1 s»;(Mr\Thorne for plaintiff].—Thos, Faulder v. Thomas Gallibrand; £4 4s, work.; coats £1 5s 6d (Mr George for plaintiff).'"'1 '■' ''■■' JUDGMENT, SUMMONS CASES. Porch and Perrin v. Howard.—Claim, £25 9s.—MrS. Hesketh said defendant bad arranged ;to. pay £5 per week, and had signed to that effect.—Accepted. Auckland Timber Company v. Johnson. —Claim, £16 13s Id.—Mr George for the Company examined the defendant as to his means. He said when he got the timber on credit he helieved that he should have been able to pay for it at the time specified. He had been ill, and had a large family, to sopport. He was paid (for the job, but spent the money in procuring family neces saries. He got no profit out of the job. Had not been earning average wages for the last ;year;—Mr George said plaintiffs did not wish to be hard upon defendant.—Ad journed for' a fortnight, to give defendant time for making arrangements. DEFENDED CASES^ Eanlock v. HilL-Chim; £1117s Bd.—Mr Keetley. for plaintiff, and Mr Blades for defendant.—The particulars of this case were gone into last week ; and the evidence was direct contradiction j' consequently it was adjourned for the production of account books on both sides. Plaintiff, a veterinary surgeon, had attended professionally upon defendant's cattle, who was a farmer at Epsom; and there had been mutual ex changes between the parties, and an ac count extending over several years.—Judg ment for defendant. Costs £1 6s. Hall vj Dryland.—Claim, £1 14s.—Mr Thome for plaintiff, and Mr E. Cooper for defendant.—This was a claim for groceries, but under the circumstances Mr Thome ac cepted a nonsuit.—Costs £1 8s 6d, DeLias v. 