MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 881, 29 July 1910, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

PLATE-GLASS ARRIVES BROKEN. (Before Mr. W. E. HaseWen, S.M.) Daniel Peter Hendrickson was sued by B. and W. Tingey and Co. for JC2 11s. Cd., value of plate-glass alleged to have lieen sold and delivered to defendant. Mr. Atkinson appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. Jackson for defendant. "The facts as stated in plaintiff's, case were that defendant, a builder at Marton, ordered a particular kind of plate-glass from Mr. E. Tingey, at Marton. He was informed liiiit no glass of that description was stocked ut the ufurlon branch, but that it could be procured ior him from the Wangamii branch. Defendant' agreed to this proposal, and the s;lass wns sent by rail to Marton, where, on its being unpacked by defendant, it was found to have been broken in transit. Plaintiffs claimed tho value of the glass, on the grounds that defendant in placing the order with the AVanganui branch, had practically taken possession at that place. It was contended, for the (hat the order being placed wilh llr. Tiiigcy at Marton, and not Wanganui, the delivery should have taken place at Marton and not Wanganui. An unauthorised carter had taken charge of the glass at Martou Railway Station, and defendant claimed that, until the glass hud been delivered tn .liim at Martou, the purchase , was not complete, and the goods were therefore carried at plaintiffs' risk on the railway. His Worship, in giving judgment, remarked that it. was a common practice, wlien dealing with branch shops, that, if-a certain article could not. ho obtained, it was procured from another branch shop, and delivery given nt tho shop where the order was first placed. He did not think that defendant had any liability until tho glass was delivered at Marton, and he was not responsible for any damage in transit. ' Judgment was given, for defendant with costs £2 10s. Gd. DISPUTED COMMISSION. .Fanning and C 0 . ,, land and estate agents, sued Charlotte Margaret M'Donald for ,£43 15s, commission alleged to be due to plaintiffs as defendants agents in procuring a buyer for lior property Mr. Young appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. Blair for defendants. 'The facts submitted by plaintiff were that they were entrusted defendant's property to sell, but not as solo agent. Plaintiffs found a prospective buyer in u Mr; G. A. Uadford, who offered several sums for the property, none of which wero accepted. Subsequently defendant reduced the price. of her property from .£IBOO to .£1750, and Kadford offered to give that sum on Juno fi last, but was informed by defendant's son that a Mr. Taylor had practically purchased the property. Plaintiffs claimed that tht-y had a buyer willing, to give defendant's prico prior to her selling to Mr. Taylor, and they therefore claimed commission at 2J- per cent, on .£1750, Iho sum for which the properly was sold, and which their client was willing to pay. It was contended for the defence that plaintiffs were not entitled to commission unless they actually completed a sale. The property was sold to a private buyer prior to the time at which plaintiff's client agreed to give the price asked by defendant!). < Judgment was reserved. FENCING CLAIM PAILS. In tho casa of Thomas Lynch (Mr. ]'. J. O'liegan) versus Margaret Slater (Mi. Himlmarsh) a claim for .£0 for share uf fencing erected by plaintilf on the boundary of defendant's property at Johnsonville, plaintiff was non-suited, with costs £1 11s. UNDEFENDED. . N Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases:—Kirkcaldio and Stains, Ltd., v. G. E. N. Anson, £7 155., costs £1 3s. 6d.; IVairarapa Farmers' Co-operative Association, Ltd., v. John James Ward, £1 17s. 2d., costs 55.; James Reid v. J. Turner, costs Bs.; Standidge and Co. v. John Smith,. £2 18s. Gd., costs 10s.; Comniissioner v of Crown Lauds v. Thomas Eae, possession and £20 12s. Gd., costs ,£2 14s. j J, B. Clarkson and Co., Ltd., v. ]?owler and Gordon, .£7 2s. lOd., costs .£1 3s. (id.; W. AViggins, Ltd., v. William J. Davis, .£BS 6s. 7d., costs £i 12s. Gd.; G. Aldous v. A. Williams, .£5, costs .£1 2s. Gd.; H. C. Gibbons and Co. v. Harry E. Vincent, '£6 10s. 7d., costs £1 Ss. Cd.; House and Kurrell Carriage Building Co., Ltd., v. David M'Cuiiib, .£l6 Us., costs M 13s. Gd.; P. Mackin v. Walter Watson,.£3 55., costs 10s.; Jeuson Brothers v. John Couxens, £i 17s. Id., costs 10s.; Frank Grady v. Charles Henry John Anderson, ,£G Bs., costs ~£l 3s. 6d.; Wellington Bakers' Union v. William Dndding, £\ Gs., costs 55.; E. H., Crease and Son, Ltd., v. James Woods. £R 12s. !ld., costs .£1 3s. Gd.; John Joseph M'Grath v. Alexander Sainmons,. ,£l6 Is., costs .£1 10s. 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. No orders wero made in the following judgment summons cases:—Arthur Hall y. Mary Carr, a claim for £Ci Bs. Gd.; Isaac Van Stavercn v. Abraham White, <C2i 155.; A. Adams v. Richard Andrews, £S Gs. lid. R.- Yarrow was ordered to pay .£2 Is. to C. Hansen, on or before August 11, in default two days' imprisonment. POLICE CASES. \. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) Two first offenders, charged with insobriety, were each fined 55., in default '& hours' imprisonment. Charles Wall, similarly charged, was fined 55., 'with the u,<>ual alternative. George Seymour, charged with assaulting Charles Wall, in Martin Street, on July 27, was ' convicted and fined 405., in default U (lays' imprisonment. At a.sitting of the Juvenile Court, two boys were convicted of wilfully damaging a window valued at. 12s. (id., the property of Wcy Ivey, and were ordered to pay Gs. 3d. each, and allowed a fortnight in which to find the amount.