MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1510, 18 March 1887, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON— FRIDAY. (Before MrH.O S. Baddaley, R.M.) OITIL OASES. G. Scott v H. Oookann, claim £1 10s for hire of buggy— Judgment for the amount olaimod with coßte. Matheson vSoramers, claim £45 I3i 9d Mr White for plaintiff, and Me Wilding for defendant.— This wag a olalm for com* niiß9ion on sales made by plaintiff si manager of Messrs H. J. Wood aad Go's Ashburton baslnesa.—- Mr Wilding oompiained that the plaintiff had not specified tha goods sold on which ho claimed commission. — Mr White replied. that It wonld bo impossible to give full | details m oonseqaenoe of the peouliar way In which the defendant's firm kept books, —Weekly statements of Hales had been submitted to Mr Somtnera, whose objaofc In objecting appeared to him (Mr Whits) to be to keep Me Matheson In Ashburton at his own expanse for a few more weeks. —His Worship deoided to allow the eat* to stand over till later In the day, stating at the time that he thought it a proptt oaie for arbitration v W. Sharp v Lancaster, olalm £4 15s 6d for some tools whloh plaintiff left la de« fendant's charge, *♦ when In trouble with the police,"— Mr Outhbertson for plaintiff, and Mr Purnoll, for defendant. — W« Sharp deposed that defendant had taken charge of the tools. When plaintiff had got over " his trouble " he applied and obtained some of the tools from Lancaster, who said he did not know where the othen were. Lancaster further required the plaintiff to pay £1 for meat and threatened to give him m charge If he oame "bothering about the shop," H's Worship pointed out that plaintiff himself had not deposed to any refusal ou defendant's part to deliver up the tools, la cross-examlna* tioh it was shown that plaintiff wa« arrested on some charge while working at defendant's house, and left some of his tools there In the "hurry of his departure." Lancaster told the plaintiff he could oome and get his tools— Thos. Kitchen, who was working at de* fendant'a house when Sharp wat arrested, deposed that Sharp had authorised him to get the tools. He went to Lancaster who did not refuse to give up the tools, but oVjeotlon was made fay defendant* daughter to do oo when witness oalled for thorn.— His Worship m non-suiting the plaintiff, with Court costs aad lOi 8d pro* fessbnal fee, said the evidence of the pMatiff indicated a desire on Sharp's part v > make Lancaster pay for tools whloh he had never deolined to give up. Mr Oathbertson Informed the Banoh that plaint ff had misled him In the Instructions. ..

B'adahaw v. Jaokson, claim Cl lla 61 for work dene— Mr White, fv*r defendant, said the defence was that plaintiff had never been authorised to do any work for Jackson. — The evidence showed that the work had been done for defendant 1 ! son, who was working as a servant fot his father iv a shop at Tinwald. Defendant had never authorised bis son to employ the plaintiff — His Worship, while agreeing with Mr White as to the law of the oave, said the olatm should, without doubt, be settled between the father and son. The father had eeen the man working on the property, and if ho did not intend to pay him should have said so. In equity and good conscience he would give jadgraeut for the amount claimed.

J. W. Moßae y Beerton, olaim £5 for board, and money lent on an order.-^-Me Orisp appeared for the plaintiff— -J. W. MoKaa deposed that defendant stayed at his hotel for about a fortnight. He aiked for Borae money, and plaintiff finding out that he was "good enough," advanoed £2 lOj cash, the balance being for board. Defendant gare plaintiff an order on the manager at Laghmor Station for £5 m, settlement of the debt, bat the order had not been paid, the manager alleging at the reason that the defendant had repudiated it. — Defendant denied that plaintiff had advanced him any money. Be further asserted that Moßae had got him to aign the order while m a state of iotoxioation. Judgment vraa given for the amount claimed and ooßts

Matherson v. Somers. — This case was " resumed by Mr White, who gave partioui lars of the claim. These showed that ( plaintiff had been engaged by the defendant, through a friend, a Mr Hinchcliff, at J a salary of £2 a week and commission on goods sold. The salary had been paid , from time to time, but defendant now repudiated the claim for 5 per cent. . commission. In bis letter to HinchclifE , it was shown that Mr Sommers estimated the commission to be worth about £l 5s . a week, and promised, if Mr Matherson Slea c ed him, to set him up m business, m February 18th defendant dismissed the plaintiff, although no complaint had evtt been made Against him. — J. A Matheson deposed that defendant's letter to Hinch> cliff had been handed to him, and he had wired to Somroera accepting the offer. In November ho wrote asking for payment of the commission, but got no reply* Afterwards he sent m a detailed account for commission up to January 31st with a letter, to which defendant replied asking Matheson "to reflect," and saying that the commission claim was a mistake, Subsequently he endeavored to purchase the business, which Sommers was williag to sail, but after seeing his father at Timaru, decided not to do so. Sommera knew of the trip to Timaru before witness left Ashburton, but when he returned and informed defendant of his inability to purchase, defendant complained of his leaving the business without permission, and wrote out a notice of dismissal. Tho only other ground of complaint against witness was an alleged mistake on an order received from the Ashbarton Woollen Company, by which Sommers asserted the firm had lost about £7. With the £2 and . commission witness's salary would be under £3 5a a week, certainly not too much for the work,— Mr Wilding cross-examined the plaintiff at length reapooting his previoos salary, oustom of charging cummtaalon, and the' amounts charged for oredit and cash sales: also as to what business ha had succeeded m getting m certain lines, such as papa* bags, printing, etc la reference to thft al'eged mistake m printing 50 blanket pnttern books for the Wool! an Company, the plaintiff deposed that he gave expliolt directions as to the binding and the mlitako was not through any fault of his — P. W. Hufcton, bookseller, Timiru, depoßed that from his knowledge of the plaintiff he considered a salary of £4 • wees a fair thing. He had never beard of suoh an arrangement as allowing oom« mission m addition to salary.— Hugo Friedhnder the next witness oalled did not appear —Mr White, In reply to His Won hip, elected not to take out a warrant and closed Ha case.— Mr Wilding con. tended that there was no evidence to prove that the sum olnlmed was due for com* miision, Plaintiff himself admitted that the rate hid been left to Mr Sommers, who n>|ght ox it at a farthing m the £.— Mr White, In reply, referred the Court to the original latter to Hinchollff In* whioh Pommers engaged Matheaon. The oommission was thereto estimated by the best judge, the proprietor cf the business, at from 20s to 25 j a week and strange to saj the amount charged came to £1 43 8d a week His Worship decided to hear the wholt of the evidf nc,fl, 0. 0. Somra^rs, the defendant, deposed that immediately after writing to Htnon* cliff, he wrote dlreot to Matheson at Dunedin, offering him £2 * week, with commission on oertaln lines of goods, viz., brown paper, pap 3r bags, printing, bookbinding and engraving, and ha thonght pianos. The oommiasion offered waa principally based on the expectation ot getting gorUtu »<jd tfja

was left m his (Mr Sommers) hands. He thought £2 a week ample payment In f aot more than Matheson wa« worth . Tbe buaines under h's management had gone down 60 per cent. He had oooaslon to frequently complain to Mathenon of the bad bonineis done. — The witness wae subjected to a searching oross-examina tlon by Mr White. (Left sifting.)