Iv the follow ing cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs :—David Clements v. Malcolm Derrick, £9 (£6 had been paid in) ; J. Cosgrave and Co. v. S. C. Cnulton, £11 17s 6d.—lu this case the claim und judgment was therefore sought aud given for the costs. JUDGMENTS CONFESSED. John Harrison v. Albert E. Car roll. —Claim, 10*.—The defendant agreed to pay at the rate of 3i a week. Charles Cole v. Thomas Aldridoe. —Claim, £5 17s sd.—An order was mide for the payment of the debt at the rale of 15s per month. adjourned. Wm. Rattray v. Wm. Rowc; W. 11. Connell V. O. Smalldeld ; F. G. Clayton v. S. O. Caultou ; Okahu Highway Board v. Elizabeth Ryan; Alex. Mackie v. 11. E. Cotton ; Mayor and Corporation of Auck land v. Karangabape Highway Bourd; R. Ree\o3 v. J. Johnstou; W. Cochrano, senr., v. John Mullally. defended cases Geo. Wilson v. William Clark.— Claim 255, for goods and iuterest.—Mr A. E. Whitaker appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. Thorne for the defendant.—The plaintiff is a vendor of Bibles upon the deferred pay ment system, and it seems that he had dis posed of a volume of Holy Writ to the wife of the defendant while the latter was absent from home. When he returned he repudiated the transaction and stopped all payments upon the book, considering it of far less value than the seller had put upon and changed for it. The unauthorised character of the wife's action was not set up as a ground of defence, and His Worship therefore, holding that tbe article was no imposition, but worth the money claimed, gave judgment for the plaintiff. Henry Elliott v. George Leahy.— Claim £9 14s, good* and cash. Mr A. E. Whitaker appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr S. Hesketh for the defendant.—The action dealt with a number ot business tran sactions which the litigants hud had with each other, and in the course of the evideuce it was admitted tbat the defendant owed, and was willing to pay £3 14..—A nonsuit was recorded as regtwQs the balance. The Court then rose.
