MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1046, 8 February 1911, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CIVIL BUSINESS, (l)cfore Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) AUOI.'T A TKOCri'ATIOX FEB. Deserved derision was delivered in tiic casa in which John iiatcman Jlarccurt and Charles .fames Stanton llarcourf, agents, of Wellington, sued K M. Dunhip, of Auckland, wite of .fames "Charles Dnnlop, trading as Dunlop and Co., agents, of AucKland, to recover the sum oi -I'M 5-., alleged to be due to plaintiffs by defendants as procuration fee at 1 per cent, oil a loan of .t7500 and valuation leu of !i guineas. In the alternative, the plaint ill's elaiincd .£Bll !i-„ as damages for alleged breach of warranty. Mr. .1. C. JVacuck appeared for the "plaintiffs and Mr. A. Jtlair for the defendants. I'laiiitifl's' ta>e was (hat tliey had secured llio loan at 51 per cent on the instructions of James Charles Dunlop, who luid been acting us agent for Mrs. Dunlop. 'J'his they contended was the ruling rate and defendants had been unable to do better at the time. For the defence it was coytendrd that the rato of 51 per cent was'never agreed la and that a loan had actually been secured in Auckland at 5 per cent about the same time ns the loan had been arranged bv plaintiffs.

In tho course of his judgment the magistrate remarked: "I am quite certain that I)iiulop and Co. knew that it. was impossible to get the amount at 5 per cent and had agreed to pay Til per cent, and I am of opinion that Mrs. Dunlop was alio well aware of this. They were man and wifo living together and when apart communicating with one another. In her .husband's absence Mrs. Dunlop had the run of the office and her son was a clerk therein and lived at home. Mrs. Dunlop's evidence constitutes, in my opinion, a record of negation. She knows nothing except what bears her signature and sometimes she is doubtful of that. She disputes and denies that she ever gave her husband authority to raise the lean at 51 per cent."

After quoting several authorities' in eases where principal, and agent and husband and wife were concerned, the masristrato held that plaintiffs were entitled to succeed against both defendants. Judgment was accordingly given for plaintiffs with the usual costs.

WAS IT WRONGFUL DISMISSAL? Hearing was concluded yesterday in the case in which Albert Price, portmanteau maker, of Wellington, sued Thomas Garland, tin-plate worker and japanner, ot Tnrnnaki Place, Wellington, to recover the sum of ,£llß 1!K !)d. as damages for alleged iwrongful dismissal. .Mr. D. 11. Findlay appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. A. Orav for defendant.

Plaintiff alleged that while in Birmingham, England, lie was engaged on August 21, 1908, to como to Wellington, New Zealand, to work for three years at .€2 14s. per week for defendant, the employment to be subject to good conduct and behaviour. Plaintiff's passage money (JCI9 7s. tld.) was prepaid by defendant and repaid in full by plaintiff by instalments of Bs. per week. On November 22, 1910, plaintiff's engagements! was terminated by defendant, and as plaintiff alleged he had performed his part of the agreement between the parties, he now claimed ,£129 125., general damages and <£10 7s. 9d. as special damages. For tho defcnce it was contended that plaintiff.bv liis conduct on different occasions had broken tho agreement between the parties. After hearing lengthy evidence, tho •_magi-trate intimated that he would give his decision on February 11.

CLAIM I'OR POSSESSION. In the case of John Mitchell, merchant, v. Charles Henry Smith, contractor, of Ohiro lioad, a claim for possession and rent, the' magistrate ordered that plaintiff recover possession by Februar.v 21 and judgment for vent and costs totalling J:18 Is. Gd. Mr. Ward appeared for plaintiff.

UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases:—F. J. Pinnv v. Mrs. Elizabeth AVilliams, JiU lis. Id., costs .£1 10s. Gd.; Kirkcaldie and Stains, Ltd., v. Thomas Proctor, £5.105. 2d., costs £1 lis. Gd.; Singer Sewing, Machine Co. v. Fanny King, ,£2 2s.'- Gd., costs 10s.; Kirkealdia and Stains, Ltd., v. John G. Wilson, ~5 lis., costs .£1 3s. ' Gd.; Morrison and Penney v. E. - 11. Dodd, .£5 10s., costs .£1 as. (id.; J. B. Clarkson and Co., Ltd., v. William Sheridan, .£3 10s. Gd., costs 55.; Alice Gcodsell v. Frederick Norton, .£2 10s. 3d., costs 135.; George Farr v. C. Pennington, XI 55., costs 10s.; Daniel O'Connor v. C. M. Tutschka, .£3 15s. Bd., costs 10s.; Stewart Timber, Glass and Hardware Co., Ltd., v. William Henry Iliggins, costs sfn same v. Fredk. William Mills. JEU Gs. 3d., costs 155.; H. linker v. H. Woods. .Sli, costs Ss.; same v. Ilenrv James Jackson, ,£l, costs 55.; same v. Walter Turner, .£t, costs 55.; same r. James llcssey, .£'2, costs ss.

JUDGMENT SUM-VGA'S. NoVorder was made in the case of Smith and Smith, Ltd., v. Edmund Greenwood, a judgment summons, claim for JCi Kis. 10(1.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) RENT ALLEGED TO BE OWING. Jlnrrv Potter Wood, ironturner, of Wellington, sued James Alexander Sutherland, second officer of the steamer Mokoia. to recover the sum of .£3 10s. alleged to he due to plaintiff by defendant as share of rent for a dwelling, Salamauca Road, for one month from December 31. Mr. R. J- Webb appeared for plaintiff and Mr. V. B. Willis for the defendant. After hearing the evidence the magistrate nonsuited plaintiff without costs on cither side.

POLICE CASES. Allan James Dix was charged with breaking into the shop of Mary Costello 011 February 0, and ,-tealiug therefrom 19 shirts and nn undershirt, value .£5, the property of Mary Costello. On the application of Sub-Inspector Norwood, accused was remanded until February 15. John William Lucas pleaded guilty to a eharge of disorderly conduct while drunk, and "was fined -ins., with witnesses* expenses Ss.. in default fourteen day?.' imprisonment. Henrietta liasmussen, charged with drunkenness, did not appear. Sha was ordei'cd to forfeit' her bail of 205., or undergo IS hour;-' imprisonment. Ono first offending inebriate was fined 55., in default 21 hours' .imprisonment. Robert Weir was sentenced to one months' imprisonment for disobedience of a maintenance order, under which the arrears amounted to .£ll Si.