RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Friday.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 507, 25 August 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Friday.

[Before Thonias Beckham, Esq., R.M.]

TnE usual weekly sitting for the recover of small debts was held to-day, and the following cases disposed of :—

Kiekpatbick v. Mowbbat.—Mr. Hesketh for the plaintiff. This was a ease held over for judgment. The parties are sharebrokers, and the action was brought to recover £19 19s, the difference between an alleged coatract price and the market price on the day after the contract) and Which the piain^ tiff deposed he had to pay in order to keep faith, with his clients. The swearing was most positive on either side, and except that there appeared escape for a good deal of minute conversation of an indifferent kind, the investigation would have suggested that it " was" very hard as well as positive. His Worship said he had given the case very great attention. He did not think the case of the plaintiff was quite satisfactory, and directed a nonsuit.

Judgments foe Plaintiffs. — Holmes Brothers v. Bach and Son, claim £12 6s ; Vaile v. Clayworth, £15 8s 6d j Oollopy v. Price, £1 2s 6d ; Carey v. McDougal, £1 Is ; Mann v. Clare, £1 14s 6d; Hunter and Nolan v. Colgan, £4 4s; Elley v. Beach, and Christie, £13 3s sd> Defended Oases. Isaacs aitd Mace v. Dudiey.—Claim £7 10s.—Mr. Brookfield for the. plaintiffs, Mr. Beveridge for the defendant.—This was an action to recover the amount of commission upon the alleged sale of a public-house at the corner of Welleeley and Hobson-streets. The , plaintiffs are general commission agents, who said they introduced a Mr. Penningtoh to the defendant as a customer for his hotel. ; An agreement to sell wag drawn up/ and the buyer gave to the defendant a deposit of £50. The sale being virtually concluded, the plaintiffs, brought their action to obtain 5 per cent, on the purchase money.—The plaintiff Isaacs testified to the above faots, but in cross-examina-tion it transpired that the plaintiffs had received a commission from Pennington on the transaction. He said that he had, as an agent, frequently received commission from 'both sides. He said that Dudley at first wanted £200 ior his hotel, but was induced by their representations to take less.—The plaintiff JMLauk gave evidence to the like effect, but there were some serious discrepancies as to the preliminary meetings.—Walter Dudley, pro prietoi- of the Prince Arthur Hotel, contradicted the plaintiffs in a great number of minor particulars as to the places where tuo first conversations with the plaintiffs occurred. He saw them once on the morning of the 10th of August. Isaacs -was so far under the influence of liquor that witness gave orders not to serve him. He came a short time before, and had to be expelled, his com panion remonstrating with him for his bad language and conduct. He swore in the most positive manner that he never asked the plaintiffs to procure Mm. a customer. There was no necessity for it; his advertisement was in the newspapers, and Mr. John Mowbray was his agent in this matter. On the contrary, he remonstrated with Mr. Pennington for having to do witk " such characters," as the plaintiffs were well known.—ln crossexamination the defendant said that a Mr. Adams and a Mr. Peuuiugton were iv his about the purchase. Mr. Adams was brought by Mr. Jno. Seccombe.—Mr. Pennington, a eetUer at Whatuwhata, was called and declined to give evidence unless his expenses were paid. His attendance would bo at the loss, probably, of £40. The witness was subpoenaed by the plaintiffs. The Court decided, as the witness was in Court, lie must give evidence. His evidence was to the effect that he met Mack, who asked if he was open to a speculation in town. Witness aaid, '■< Yes, if he got it cheap." Mack refused, to say where it was unless witness would give him v commission. Mack never introduced witness to Mr. Dudley—there was no personal introduction, but witness went with Mack, daw Isaacs there under the influence of drink. He contradicted Mack as to going ovbr the house with him, and also as to the exact price paid for the hotel, which, was £170, and not £150.—His Worship having heard the counsel on either side, gave a verdict for the defendant.

Mills v. Sandall.—Claim £1 Is sd.— This was an action for wages.—The defendant put in a set-off.—Mr. Beveridge said there could be no set-off against wages.—The defendant said the plaintiff agroed to make good certain breakages.—His Wor»hip ruled that there could be no sot-off against wages.—lt. waa arranged that execution should not issue for a week, so as to enable the defendant, if he pleased, to bring an action for the amount claimed for breakages, &c. ' Daltox v. McDonald.—Claim £4 4s.— l\fr. Thorne for the plaintiff, Mr. Beveridge for the defendant.—This was an action for the professional services of Mr. Dalton, being engineer and surveyor.—The plaintiff examined, said he was staying at Allowayfs, G-rahamstown, when the defeudant called upon him, and asked him to go and mark some ground on the Waiotahi. Plaintiff asked who was to pay, and the defendant said ihe would pay ; also that they would ,pay, mentioning Mr. Cunningham,. Newmarket, Mr. Hannaford, Mr. Hay, ancL'oth'ers. Mr. Cunningham said he knew nothing about it. The ground to be surveyed formerly bolonged to the Hector Gold Mining Company. —Joseph Edmund Dalton, son t) the last witness, confirmed the above eyi; dence in every particular.—Colin :: McDonald, the defendant, said he went to Mr. Dnllon's lodgings as described, •p.ad wjelied him to, go to the; piece; of groundl mentioned. But he told him, at the same time, that he came with instructions from. Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Neal, and other gentlemen, who would pay for the service.—ln crossexamination this witness explained, that he went for Mr. Dalfcm's >eon,. but that Mr. Dalton, son., volunteered to goto the ground. —His Worship gave judgment for the pliiintiff. : „■ ... . ~