MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 26, 25 October 1907, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) POLICE'CASES. There was an'unusually light charge sheet an the Magistrate's - Court yesterday morning. Three first-offending inebriates. were convicted and discharged. j Maurice Brovn, a in-eman, appeared on a charge of disorderly behaviour in Willis ' Straet. The police stated that accused was arrested for fighting, at about 9.30 on •Wednesday night. 1 Brown that a man had come up to him and. punched him, and that he had to strike back in self-de. fence.i A conviction and fine of 205., in default three days' imprisonment, was lm-'M-Keever, an elderly man,' with a severely battered face,-was charged with being an idle and disorderly porson with no visible means of , support. Sub-Inspector O'Donovan stated that accused was found . lying down in Dixon • Street, groaning. For Bome time past -he had been sleeping out in the open-air. . His ' Worship : convicted accused, and sentenced him to three months , imprisonment, with hard labour. i Arthur Cecil Wolff was remanded) by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., uitil Novembor 4 on a 'i charge'of. having disobeyed an order made in Auckland that ho should pay ss. per week to- > wards the support of his child Bernard Wolff. ! Chief-Detective M'Grath informed His Wor--1 ship that accused was arrested on a warrant from Auckland. • The amount of arrears mentioned in. the warrant was £1 10s., but he understood",a' larger sum than this was involved. Accused wished to be remanded m order that he could, communicate with Auck-, land, and make arrangements, if possible, for paying the money. -. Bail ;was allowed in, self ■ £10,. and one surety of ;£lo.;j Mr; >Petherick. . appeared for defendant. ■;> i i'.-<■ ' ' Two children,' Sydney; and Herbert, Henry Holt; whose mother was alleged to be m in- ' digent circumstances, and unable to support them, were committed to 'the'iWellingtb.n .Receiving Home. •' ' '

CIVIL BUSINESS. - y • (Before Dr'. A.j M'Arthur, S.M.) Judgment was entered for plaintiff in the following' civil . caies:—Phoenix Aeratfid Water Co., Ltd., v.-Richard Pratt, £3 ss. 6d costs 10s.; John S. Orchard v. -Frederick. A. 'Johnson, £20,' costs £2 6s;; Emilio ,Borghetti.v. Wm. Bosley, £8; 10s. 1 , costsv£l 35.; 6d.; Commercial Agency, '-Ltd-, iv. P. R. Cook (assignor) v. George G. ,Fitzgerald, £2 17s; 6d., costs 10s. ; Danneyirke Co-operative 'Association, Ltd;, v., .John £19 i 18s. 6d., costs £1 10s." 6d;; • ' John' M Lean ind' Thomas Reid Archibiild,y,vHa.rry. Norman, £4 18s. lid.; •oosts|los.i? David Pryde; f. Robert Hogg, 10s. (costs only). _ '. , The hearing of the' case Frederick Biel, billiard-room proprietor, of Petone,; .against Herbert Ernest Leighton, land' agent, Hutt,. was advanced another stage. Plaintiff claimed •'£2o for wrongful taking and detention of a greyhound, and defendant counter-claimed for £10 10s., the valuo of seven sheep 1 ,0 havo been Worried and killed by plaintiff's ' 'jog, and for damage done to three sheep alScged to havo been worried and seriously in-, jured by the dog. The evidence of several further witnesses was taken, and : the case was adjourned Until Thursday next.' Mr. Wilford appeared' for plaintiff, and, Mr. B.cere for. def - idant.' . '

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES In' tho judgment summons case,' Wm. 'Arthur Izard v. H. E. Ivey, a debt of £33 95., debtor was ordered to pay on or before November 7, in default ono month's im--1 prisonment. *In tho case Hanson and Lowrie v. Edward J. Sjheppard, <1 debt of £4 2s. lid., debtor was ordered pay on or before November 7, in default seven days' imprisonment. ,; ; V; >; ■ ' RESERVED JUDGMENTS. AN TJNUSDAL' LAW POINT. '' An interesting point was discussed by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M:, in his judgment m tho caso between .Hennessey, and Allardyep, :. a claim for £31 195., being amount' duo.-..for' board .and lodging and' money lent.: It;had: been contended. by 'Mr. T. M.. Wilf sel for the defendant) that, ; as'.thp'jcpntract' ■was made in South Africa, country should "be 'applied • in. 'deciding:-:the-dispute. "No authority in support iof.'this proposition' was,'howovfer, cited.; ship pointed'"out that tho Courts;'in ttho;Do- , minion' did not take judicial notice; of the •laws of foreign countries, which;.must'-'be proved in the ordinary way; In the. present case there was, he said, no proof that counsel's statement respecting tho Statute of i Limitations which, counsel was informed, •existed in South Africa,.was-correct,-arid-tho rule as to tho enforcement in ono country of a contract validly made in another was that the law of the country in which the action was brought applied. ..- As to the merits of the case, defendant said that he had paid for the board and lodging, but plaintiff produced an 1.0. U. for the amount m defendant's own handwriting. His Worship was of opinion that the weight of evidence was in favour of the plaintiff, for whom judgment must bo.-.given.'!for the amount claimed, with costs totalling £4 2s. ' Mr. Wilford applied for, and was granted, leave to appeal, on the ground that thi.law of South Africa and not tho law of the Dominion should govern the case. ,

THE PURCHASE OF A SECTION.' BUYING FROM THE PLAN. The risk attending the purchase of uninspected property was, instanced'in a case in which Mr. ftiddell, S.M.,' his reserved judgment - yesterday, morning. In March last William Lonergan, who had seen a sale plan describing cortain allotments at Karon, among other tilings, as lovol, -attended a sale held in Messrs. Sidoy, Meech and Co.'s auction mart, and became the purchaser of a section which Was not level. Subsequently, he consonted- to the institution of negotiations for a transfer to a third party.' These negotiations fell'through, and Lonergan sought to repudiate his liability. Tho plaintiffs in the action wero H. M. Bannehr, auctioneer, ID. C. Leyvey, .barrister, and John Thompson, civil servant,'and tho amount of fchoir claim against Lonergan was £3 17s 6d, being £2 12s Gd, a second instalment of purjhaso money in respect of the allotment, and £1.5s interest to dato of judgment. Defendant counter-claimed for £3 17s. 6d., bpin-; Jhe : amount of the first instalment paid by him. His Worship held that the statement that the section was level was a material one

mado with tho knowledge of tho vendors. Th(j word "level" on tho sale plan applied to most of the sections offered for sale, but nf ?J : apply to somo, and with regard to theso it should have beon qualified. • In cases of contracts for tho sale of land full : disclosure was required. The* other, words ion the p.lan woro, in his opinion, words'of commendation only. Dofendant had' deposed that tpo • representation was the main. reason •of his bidding for tho section, but it need not bavo been' thobsolo reason; inducing Him/to pnr■chasd, in .order that he mighfc.navo the. right; to rescind, if the representation were found,to i bo incorrect, 'Plaintiff hiid affinhed that defendant might easily havo. discovered beforo the salb.thb nature of the sections, but there was , i.authority that, where '-a person relied upon a representation; as intorided-by tho person making it, he was generally entitled^ to avoid 'the • agreomont notwithstanding that thero were means of.information of which he did not avail himself. In the present case the evidence showed that .defendant was induced to purchn.se tho section , by reason of a statement on tho part of the vendors contained in tho 1 plan, which was untruo in fact, and it was clear that he would have been entitled to'rescind his contract if he had notified the .vendors, to that offect immediately after he discovered i thei.section? was .not it was'represented: to';be.!' The; Court wa.s_inclined to' : think .that' he' had waived his right to rescind the contract. The riilei was that, if a purchaser stood by after he had become awaro of a fact which would give him the right to rescind his contract, . and made. no objection, he would be deemed to have waived his right. ■ Upon ascertaining that the section did not correspond to.the description on the sale plan, defendant did not advise the plaintiffs, and it was..'not until nearly the end of Juno that defendant sought to' repudiate the contract. '• There was, His Worship said, also some ovidence of an exercise of ownership in his offering to sell to a third party after ho became aware that the section was not level, and before he>, notified plairitifFs that he! did not'intend, to complete. The Court thought . the equitable maxim "delay defeats equities" applied m this case: Judgment must be given for/ plaintiffs for the amount with costs £3,65., and judgment' for defendant on counter claim without costs. - •