MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11498, 3 February 1903, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

DEFAULT OASES. In tabie following coses the defendants did not appear, and , Mr R. Beetshwn, S.M., gave judgment against them, by default, with costs:— Bdwaird Brit* v Katie Dolley, ss; Beath and Co. v George Davidson, i>l 18s 4cb; Tonka, Norton and Co. v Thompson, 1/8 6d; same v Henry R. Cflarke, £3; Charles W. Harvey v G. R. Ditfond, i>l2 3a 6d; and Waiter A. Robson (Mr Franku) v John Magnus, £9 10s. A WRONGFUL DISMISSAL CASE. Meeen Hill and Hishon (Mr Stringer) claimed froon the Southland Implement Company (Mr Harper) £150 damages for breach, of contract of employment, and £30 12s 9d commission on sale of goods. From the statement of <\lawn t it appeared that the plaintiffs, in April last, had been engaged t>y the defendferate to act as their agents for a period of twelve months, in a defined district in the South Island. The remuneration was to be a oesrUin percentage cm certain sales of implement*. In August the defendants cold their business to M«sara Cooper and Duncan, and tihe plaintiLSs* last tbedr eraploymeot. The defence was that if there ever wae such an agreement as alleged, which was denied, the same had been terminated! in a proper manner, and according to the terms and conditions thereof, and that further the agreement had been terminated by reason of the neglects, defaults, and improper conduct of tihe plaintiffs. The defendants also counterolaimed for £25 18e 9d, for moneys received and retained by the plaintiffs, and which belonged to tine defendaata. Mr Harper contended that under the agreement one moniih'e notice could be given to the plaintiffs, and thai, ifoe plaintiffs had hod sufficient r.otice of the termination of the agreement. After hearing Ihe evidence and addresses of counsel, Wβ Worship gave judgment for tihe plaintiff Hishon for £60 11* 3d, and for the plaintiff Hifl for £35 11b 3d.