MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 529, 9 June 1909, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■ ■;.; (Before Mr. W. G. -Biddell, S.M.) • MAINTENANCE. D W e( } Win. Johnsoii, a painter - ... *PP?ared in. answer to. a oliarge of failing to • ./V ..*«;«M«etl..he was the (father. Defendant was orderectto.pay 7s. per week to' ■■^ o '' W ? red - to W Jfc^id o^ appemd ° a^. CHARGE OP DESERTION. ' ' I . ... . ; ArUj^&Wt'Tf , Vit]uarsK l ' a young mail, irn V nt W ?r till Monday, on a charge of having ' '.!S" S l 1 1, ojl January 14, deserted his wife 0 L 'j- " **• iHowed in acv SvLm? W vk O SS T ' 0 - iC5 ° an<i two sureties of V " ■ " Leary appeared for defendant. ROWDIES IN A BAR. '^Connor, f aHaa- Stewart, and James ~ Conloa, pleaded guilty ; to a charge of using '.V iw ? lng ill the; bar 'of the Crick? Si-,™ Hotel, m-hcrcby a broach of the ■ B°th'accused were conpr&el *" defau!t u do * s ' I ; INSOBRIETY.' ■ •• w . a ? c oV'ctod and fined 10s„ in h ° llr ® JMprisonment, for insobriety. and another convicted and disoharged. CIVIL BUSINESS. '■(Before Dr;,A; M'Arthnr, S.M.) . ' UNDEFENDED OASES, v.i ■-7 as^%'d' f°r pJoin'tiff by default 'bo -.folfon'infr .undefended .«a«sjrEob«rt :Willonghby Armit v. R. J3. .Wal- : , ton, 9s. Gd., costs 55.; Hutchison; Wilson, ajjti &• , ant ,?"!'lson.' .«7;7e; lidi, costs £1ICs 6d.; Kirkealihe and Stains. Ltd., v. 'Henri-

G. Tailored, £1 13s„ costs 55.; Wellington City Council v. .Mary Anu Chalker, JCI 3s. 9d„ costs 75.; D. Lloyd Clay v. Joseph John Boden Blakeraove, ,£1 2s. 6d., costs 125.; same v. E. E. White, '.£5 55., costs .il 3s, Gd.; South Pacific Mortgage and Deposit Co;, Ltd., v. P. T. Eniorson, .£ll 9s. 9d., costs .£1 13s. Cd.; Wellington Trust, Loan, and Investment Co., Ltd., v. Samuel Dowdall, .£ls 18s. 9d.; costs JEI 10s. 6d. ; Kirkcaldio and Stains v. Bobert Alison, .£2O 15s. Id., coitts .£2 lis. j Laery and Co., Ltd., v. Chas. Edwards, iJ lis 2d., costs XI 3s. Gd.; ■ Wellington City Council v. Wm. Hamlin, £$ Bs. 3d., costs 65.; same v. Wm. Hamlin, .£l3 2s. 3d;, costs 13s.Eobt Burton Pynsent lv. C. Corkery/ -C 2 Ss., costs 355.; H. Oscar Heivett and C 0.,. Ltd., v, Alico Jensen! JH 2s. fid., costs .£1 Gs.; same v. Fredk.- Bridgewater, Xi, costs 10s.:' Diahtond Confcationarv Co. v. \Vni. Henry Barnett, ,£-f Is.,' lid., costs 10s.; Wellington Traders' Agency, as assignees of Clemont Walker, v. Chas. Mitchell, .£1 15s. 3d., costs''lis • - ' i- ' •. •. ' . JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. In the judgment summons case, O'Regnn and Dix v, W. ,C.'Aubrey, a.debt of <614 18s., . debtor . was ordered, to pay on or before June 22, in dofault 14' days' imprisonment. Joseph Andrews was ordered to pay £9 ls. ! to tho Wellington 'City Council before Jnno 22, in default .soven days 1, imprisonment. • In the .case . S. Luko and Co., Ltd., v. John Moffatt, a debt of M 65., debtor was ordered to pay on or-before-June 22, in dofault threo days' imprisonment. ■ . . . 1 No order was mado in. the case Arthur Bolton v. Wm. Lloyd, a debt'of <£1 2s. sd. DEPENDED CASES. ';' A KENT CLAIM. (Before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M.) Joseph Walter M. Harrison, physical instructor, Maranui (Mr. Neilsen) sued Mrs. ICate Sanders (Mr. Fitzgibbon) for £2 10s. 9d., being two weeks' ront of a house owned by the plaintiff and occupied by tho defendant. The plaintiff stated that the defendant left, without notice, while tho defendant nrged that she sent the key along to the plaintiff. ' His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for. *81 7s; 6d„ with costs 6s. • BURNT INVOICES. . , William Henry Suckling, liquidator of the firm of Nicol, Stringer, and Roberts, Ltd;-'(Mr. Anderson),, sued Dr. Thomas Cahill (Mr. Fair) for' .613 12s. 5d., for work done and goods- ■ supplied. . : After hearing the plaintiff's 1 case; his Wor-ship-held that a non-suit, would have to.be entered, the statement, of claim not being explicit enough. This was due to the fact that all tho invoices ihad been burnt. by the bij? fire in Court'enay Place. His Worship said that ; perhaps tlie\. plaintiff had „• a case, but he. had not brought sufficient proof .before the Court. The plaintiff must, I/o non-suited: Mr. Pair pointed out that the case had already been onre -before the Court, whenS nonsuit.was entered. His Worship must therefore enter judgment for the defendant. ■ Jndgiuent was accordingly given for tho defendant, with .costs <S1 Is. . ...', (Before Dr.. A. M'Arthur, S.M.). A CANVASSING AGREEMENT. Amcotts Cracroft Wilson, agent (Mr. Fair), claimed 5 £50 damages from G. Victor Book, advertising.'agent (Mr. Herdman)." The statement of claim set out that, about January 7, de. fendant agreed in writing to employ plaintiff as canvassing advertisemont agent for the Official .Telephone Directory, in Dunedin. Plaintiff was to get about six weeks' work,at 10s. per week'and travelling expenses, also 'a' commission of 7 per cent, on advertisements up to' 4300, and an additional ly per cent, on advertisements/over that amount. Plaintiff, it was alleged, refused another position worth about iCS a week, and made arrangements to go to Dunodiitv. but defendant refused to employ him as agreed> . . . For. the defence it .was urged ■ 1 (1 j That no : proper contract, suoh :as was intended by the' ' parties, was entered into; (2) that, assuming that; a contract Was entered into, and that had been ;a breach of it, such breach would ' only entitle plaintiff to nominal damages, if any.' Counsel contended further that the wholo trouble was the result of a misunderstanding, There,was no deliberate breach ' of contract. At this stage the hearing of the case was adjourndd? till thisvafternooii. ijn

HOTEL PURCHASE COMMISSION. Commission on: the purchase" of an hotel formed the subject of a claim preferred' by Bertenshaw and Evensen against Wm. Traill. Plaintiffs, who were represented by Mr. Findlay, stated that defendant negotiated through them for the purchase of the Tauherinikau Hotel, and the olaiin of ,J!2.5 represented pommission on the purchase. For tho defence, Mr. Neave urged'that', the purcliaso was not effected through Bertenshaw and. Evensen, • but through A. f C., Pearco and Co., who-arranged both the price and the financing. r After'hearing evidence the "case was. adjourned till '.this afternoon. :.

; ; SUING FOR A "BEAD" DEBT. JSeamed judgment was delivered by Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., in the case of the Te 'Aro Loan Co (Mr/ Bolton) .v. Goo. B. Lusk (Mr. Perry), The plaintiff, company 'Sought, to ; recover: from defendant the sum of £29 on a promissory note made by defendant in favour of, 1 and held by,- the plaintiff company, together with .£'2 10s. interest. Defendant relied on-the following ground of dofonceThat lie (tho. defendnnt),was adjudicated a bankrupt on August i, 1907, and obtained his discharge 'on August 2G, .1907, and that the promissory note was ti renewal of a note for .£29, given by defendant to plaintiff lfefore' August £ 1907. The original note, and the two renewals were endorsed- by a third party. . Counsel for' plaintiff urged that the forbearance, of plaintiff to sue the ..endorser on, the , original not© and the first renewal was a good consideration for the giving of .the note now sued on. Plaintiff had lost his remedy against, the endorser by failing to giyo him due notice when tho note 'sued on became due. It was 'quite good law that tho loss or abandonment of any right, or,the forbearance to exercise it for a definite or ascertainable time, is as good a consideration as actually* doing something. His' Worship considered counsel's reasoning perfectly sound, but tho Court did not think it applicable to tho present case, which had to bo looked at in reference to the bankruptcy of-the defendant. The original no.to was a debt, anil an order of discharge released' the bankrupt from that debt.- In the present case defendant .was'' released from the original liability, and any promise to revive that' liability was an agreement without consideration. The liability was dead, and could not be revived. The plaintiff had. only himself to thank ,if he allowed the endorser .to- go-free, and it'could not for one moment be .contended that the notes were for the ; accommodation of' tho endorser. Judgment would , for defendant, with costs <£2 2s. Notice of appeal was given by Mr. Bolton.