MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 547, 30 June 1909, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

:'.)'^(Before. .Riddell,S.M.)/ , : : 'O'£f REMAifKED; FOR; SENTENCE.,:;. : ! chargo that, !on January. ; ':4;. ;at^iWollii)gtonl> ; boing : in i receipt ■ of 'the; of;l3s^Bid. ; ;bn'-terms requiring him to. ' f account :for: same'.to : ;hi3' : «raployor,:Hohry, /.Fisher, -ho■•did:' fail tov account * for same,. <: ..thcreby/committing: theft. -: ; .. .. ■:■''■'-:■' ■:," ;';:•;.On .tho : application of. Chief Detective Bro-:-:<j-berglaccuaed-'Waa remanded, to,-,'Juno;.3o for ;':; ; : Bontence,'"V''S. v'fc- : .:-r ■. : -//: : : ; lh;V:/o'.:.':''''.: '■;:'' ;Vv^Wi' ; iDLE AND;DiSORDERLY;''/, ' "' For being an ldlo and disorderly person within tho meaning of the Police offence 3 Act, 1908, in;that sho had'insufficient lawful means of support, Florence M'Donald was convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment On a simihr charge John Johnson was eontenced to a like penalty. Station-Ser-geant Darbj sud that tho accused had boon wandering about tho wharves for somo time past looking in vain foi work. OTHER CASES. An application wasjiiiade by Henry I.orrigan for tho remission of arrears on a maintenance order foi tho support of an inmato of the Industrial School. His Worship granted a remission of tho arrears up to March 1. Ono first offender for insobriety was convicted and fined 5s , in default 24 hours',impnsonment. CIVIL BUSINESS. (Before Dr A M'Arthur, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiff by default of defendant was given in the following undo-j fended cases —Ellas John Forbes v. R. G. Harvey, £2 5s , costs £1 10s.; the same v. A Hav Mackenzie, £1 125.'6 d., costs 55.; Cadbufy Bros, Ltd, v M. H. Biooking, £33 16s 7d , costs £2 4s ; the same v. J. Bridson, £8 13s 6d , .costs 18s.' 6d.; William Mcston v. Frank Reeves, £2, ; costs 5s , the same v Richard Carroll, £4 7s. 6d., costs 6s , H G Anderson and Co. V. Sarah Ferguson, £13 lis , costs £110s. 6d.; Banks Co-operative Meat Distributing, Co., Ltd., v, Sydney David Levien and Eleanor Alice Rollott, carrying on business as Levien and\Rollett, £15 17s. 6d , costs £1 13s. 6d.; Wellington Building Trades Onion v. James Brockie, 13s , cost 3 55., the same v. Charles Beuth, 8s , costs 5s , E Reynolds and Co., Ltd., v. W M Easthorpc, jun , £16 165., costs 155.; Phelps, Wilson and Co, \. Will Imrio, £43 14s 7d /costs £2 Us , United Asbestos Australasian Agency, Ltd , v Heriery Srnit)!, £7 25., costs Cs , tho "New Zealand Times" Co , Ltd , v. Clarry Smith, 55., costs os.; Empire Loan and Discount Co., Ltd., v. Henry Parker, £23 15s, costs £2 175.,; Abraham and Williams, Ltd., v. W. Taylor, £10 4s. 3d . costs £1 13s. 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. In tho judgment summons case of Caroline Elizabeth Angerstcm v.' -.Frederick Cartby, a debt ,of £13 10s., debtor was ordered to pay on or before July 13,jin,default fourteen dajs' imprisonment. His Worship made no order in each of the following cases —Michael M'Grath v. Geo. Mitchell, £8 18s ", Richard Septimus, Rounthwaito v. William Johnson, £30 2s. 6d.; Frederick H. Meyer v. W. F Tuppett, £7 25.. , AN ADVERTISING .CONTRACT!.'' Reserved judgment was delivered by Dr. A. M'Arthur, 8.M., m the case, Wilson v Beck, a claim for.the sum of £50 damages Plaintiff'stated (1) that on or about January 7, defendant,agreed.to employ bun as canvassing agent for J advertisements, Dunedin. Ofhcial '.telephone directory', ,; (2). that plaintiff was to canvass Dunedin .(estimated at about six weeks' work) ! at >;a: salary of 10s per week,"and "travelling together, with a commis6ion-ofi7 r per- ceht.on all advertisements up: to'; £300,;' ,; ' arid. -» further li per cont. on all over such amount; (3) that when plaintiff had refused; another position, worth about £5 a week,',and'.made arrangements to go to Dunedin, defendant lofused to employ ••him. Plaintiff; claimed for tho profit which he would have made if the arrangement had been/carried ;out. \ Tho'facts of the case, as:determined by his Worship, were, that ;after preliminary, negotiations, a written offer-was'-made ! to plaintiff, on January 6, ;and,. accepted in writing. PlamtifE was to have'-met'defendant and his partner later, in' .order sigh!.a formal contract. This was ;'. hot -done,;, and the parties did not meet again'tilh January'' 15, when defendant had engaged /another canvasser His Woiship / stated ''that, .hi. his opinion, the olfer and;acceptance .of January 6 constituted a binding -'contract, and tho signing of the formal/contract did not operate as a condition .that''there: was to ho nothing binding until■;a/.formal .agree; ment had been executed. Irt!regard todamages, his Worship held that;' ini- accordance with common law, plaintiff should;ho placed in the same situation, so far' do it, as if tho contract had been 'performed. Such compensation, would entitle plaintiff; to 1 six weeks' salary, aE £3 /10s. r! Judgment was thoroforo given for plaintiff for £21;;aiid. costs £5 2s l-v/:'V;\-'.;K v -':';''' ; -'''', Mr, Fair appeared for plaibtiffy .and Mr. Hcrdman for defendant ;/'-^//v : /l:^:./'V''; UNAUTHORISED EXPENDITURE;:)] His Worship, Di. M'Arthur,'delivered reserved decision m the case of Seaton /aiid Sladden (All. lair) v Mrs.'■ Elizabeth .Soiiierviile \iVlr. M'Giath), a claim for; £10/..: This was a claim, his", Worship - said, for work and labour done' from 'li'obrsary to August, 1907. Tho work was, surveys, plans, specifications, etc ,", of roads:in • cortain properties at Mastorton.; -At'.tho .time tho work was done, W G; Somerville was tho registeied projnietor: .of '-the property, and gavo the 'instructions'; necessary • for doing the woik Accounts-for ■ the work done were rendered to W. 'G. 4 .Spmervillej and tho plaintilb looked to him for : payment. In July, 1908, the property was conveyed by AV G Somervillo to his; mother,.tho sent defendant. .-///. ; ; ; •'- ->m It appeared that, in November, :1908,W; G Somervillo called a / meeting y of his creditors, at which meeting,/aiid afterwards, it was given in evidence, that/he said the debt was one of his mother's, and /not'one of his The properly did hot appear among his assets It was shown that,' in his ledger; he had debited his mother with a portior of the debt, vu , £53 12s; -'H.', './■■/■. : y "For tho plaintiffs, it was' contended' thai W G Somervdlo wos; agent :for..hii mother, and that, tlicreforp, the' -plaintiffs could elect to sue tho undisclosed principal His Worship Aould not agree '.with, this con tention, as, m his opinion,' at the ,time tin work was done, and instructions'given, W G Somervillo was not an agent,'butvwai tho principal, tho proporty./not'having/beei conveyeil to his mother till.a year later. Thi plaintiffs looked to the defendant:only afte: thev had found out that she.had become: thi owner Ono of tho plaintiffs', iii;giving eyi \ donee, stated that SomeryiuV did //not s'a; so much as that his mother : was liable,* bu that ho gathered that, and further., hn statei that Somervillo put the liability • into th , Official Assignee as ono ofihis.'.':- : >!.-.:-' ,' There was not a word of evidenco to sho\ that Somervillo was acting';:as: 'agent' fo his mother either when, ho:.gave . instruc tions, or when .the work 'was done,' nor, o [ anv ratihcation of the liability by tho dt } fendant Under tho circumstances of/ th ( ctsc, and for tho reisons stated, his...Woi \ ship was of the opinion'that 'the plaintiff /. must be non-suited, with i costs■; £5 2s;' fc '* defendant. ~///,/'':-■'.'.-/:-/'■ i' ALLEGED BRF.ACH OF.AGREEMENT; $' Tho caso in which Gcorgo Morris (Mr. Levi \ sued the,\Vell|ngton Fresh Food'and Ice Con i piny, Ltd (Mr Johnston), for ;£IOO, damage i' for alleged broach of contract;"was/advance f a further st.ige "' .*V""--'-- - .-::"'".■'• : ';'. : ':' Plaintiff, it was alleged,'had entered int I' an agroomont with the defendant, conipan; in which it was stipulated that-the compan should not retail rnilk Tho plaintiff allege that the defendants had not carried 1 out ti

contract. ':The plaintiff's caso was- heard somo days ago, and at the.closo of the plaintiff's, oase, counsel for tho defendant asked ior'.'a' non-suit, on various grounds. In his Worship's •.opinion such non-suit should not bo granted, for several' reasons, which he stated. He considered that a prima facie ■ case of. broach of agreement had been made /• out.: Tho question of competition \vas one of fact, and his Worship .would 'require to hear _ the defendant's answer to the plaintiff's case y on thai'point. He. required'further'argumont 1 as .to .the agreement, beiiig contrary to •> public policy, and as to there, being no S valuable .consideration for the so-called alteration in; the .agreement. The request for a p non-suit : was thereforo refused. . . ." YTlie further.liearing was'fixed for Thursday morning. , HOUSEBUILDING CLAIM, Alexander Bell, : builder; (.Mr. Johnston), •' claimed £197 10s.: Bd. from G. H. Sample clcrki (Mr. Blair), for goods supplied and work done in connection with tho erection -, of-a ' hduse. at Hataitai. - As.a preliminary to' the hearing it .was - arranged that his -Worship, in company with a builder to -fro selected by him-self,-should 'visit : the house next ;day. Tho ; case was therefore .adjourned.,//':/-''/ • r A BILL OF EXCHANGE Jackson and Co., oil and 'colour merchants, Wellington, sued H. J. Woods, land and estato agent, Brooklyn, for £42, the amount of a dishonoured bill of exchange,., drawn' by. J.; H, Ledger and Co., of which the defendant was tho acceptor. ■' • . • His, Worship 'reserved his decision. Mr. ■ Young appeared for -plaintiffs, and Mr. Dunn' for defendant. (Beforo. Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) v - SOLD OR HIRED? : Andrews and.'Mantkel, Ltd., machinery merchants and importers, of Wellington, proceeded against Jas: Buchanan and tho D'resh Food :.and. Ice . Company,;* of Okoia, near Wanganui, to recover.l.62 10s., vahio of, a cream: separator/, The statement of > claim ■ .set oufc lthat; in September, 15)06,'defendant ißuchanan ordered iroin plaintiffs a ; No. .16 •; Sharpies Tubular Cream. Separator. ; Not having a No.-16 in stock, plaintiffs seht :a. No. 7 for use iirthe'mearitime.'' A little later in. the/same month, a; No. 16 was sent forward,-, with, a; request that.. Mr. . Buchanan -i should sell t-he .No.' 7 machine on commission* , to' save the expense/of returning: it. .This .- defendant- Buchanan agreed;',to.' ;: -Soon- after. Buchanan sold ',his interest in ~ the Okoia - Butter, Factory: to the defendant Fresh Food ahd Ice:.Company;'.but sent no notice :of..the salo to plaintiffs.- Defendant Buchanan, failing, to-return'the No.. 7; separator; and not replying .to--continued 'accounts'-., for.' the machine, scnt j by plaintiffs, Maurice Manthel, director of tjic plaintiff company,:on January: . 2,'- 1909,:visited,.Okoia. for-, the purpose\of , ascertaining thoffhereabouts of tho sepatator, . and found .that it wa3 jbolted down to a concrete, floor, .and doing the dairy - separating for, the ' Company... Whoreforo' plairitifls claimcd the 'sum 'of '£32 ' 10s., value *'of" the'-Noi-iT separator. ' - . ---V Mr. O. Beere, for. plaintiffs, read ; evidence taken at Wanganui ;iii regard to tho case,; .. and .also, called Mr. Maurice Manthel to bear; 1 out the "statements made in the claim. ",J\ ': |Mr.. Toogood; who appeared .for th'o;defe;i" dant Fresh ,Food and IqejCompany, said that / tho.defendant company,;liad never taken over ■ or purchased .'the. 'No. 7'- machine./ • No.- 16' frequently, got out of ordor, and when' this < was tho case tho company used No. 7, as '• Buchanan had,,d,one' before ho sold .thebusi-riess.'-.'fThd: ma'chirio:'- hiid never been bought, . and, plaintiffs, might have it back''whenever they wished.; Before ..the hearing of the casoi 'Mr; -Boer ( b/.intimated not 'd'esire'-'to 'take proceedings -against defendant Buchanan'until, the result of tho caso against 'the Fresh Food and Ice Company was known. , His Worship reserved his decision. /" :'