In this case Mr. J. B. Davies appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. G. LIH, Wright for the defendant.
It was a claim for Tls. 1,949.38, being salary due by defendant to plaintiff and for monies loaned by plaintiff to defendant.
On the application of Mr. Wright pleadings were ordered.
Win. Little & Ca, v. Garner, Quelch & Ca.
This was a claim for the return of Tis, 2,182.92, money paid by plaintiffs to defendants, as the price of goods not delivered, plus interest.
Mr. G. H. Wright represented the plaintiffs, while defendants were unrepresented.
Mr. Wright said there was a possibility of a settlement of the action and asked that the return day be adjourned till Monday, May 14.
An order was made accordingly.
Hanson, McNeill, Jones & Wright J. F, Brenan in Charge of the Land Office, and the China Realty Mr. G. H. Wright appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. H. P. Wilkinson. Crown Advocate, for Mr. J. F. Brenan. The China' Realty Com pany was not represented or present.
On Mr. Wright's application the return day of this case was adjourn ed sine die with liberty to apply The Crown Advocate was - relieved from further attendance in the action pending special notification. The China Realty Ca. were ordered to pay costs of plaintiffs and of the Crown Advocate in any event.
Appearances in Court, From the above it will be seen that the defendants in two cases did not appear in Court nor were they represented. In connexion with this the Assistant Judge asked the representative of the Press who was in Court to make a note of the follows, when served with a 1 actions and do not appear, whether they be limited companies or not, are at fault, and judgement will be given against them if they cannot give good reason as to why they should not appear.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.