MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1554, 25 September 1912, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.") HOT«EL PURCHASE. •INCIDENTAL COSTS DISPUTED. In a case Fuller v..,Bul'k-r, which was heard in tUp" Magistrate's Court, yesterday, plaintiff Fuller claimed,lo recover n sum ■of £23 13s. Id. paid'by him to Manning and Company, Ltd., for goods supplied to Butler, and, also, .the sum of .£lB 4s. lid. as solicitors' fees, also paid by plaintiff for the defendant, thus making a total sum of Ml ISs. 3d. Plaintiff alleged that he had .(by reason of the default of Butler) been compelled lo pay this 'sum in order to obtain the 'benefit, of a certain agreement for ailc. This agreement was dated December 5, 1910. and was made by Butler. By it Butler sold the Starborough Hotel to Fuller. -The-opinion of the Magistrate, as expressed in his judgment, was that Fuller had never received any request from Butler—express or implied—asking him to pay the money on his belialf, or even any subsequent recognition. Counsel for defendant had asked for a nonsuit on the'ground that there had been no privity-of contract, between the parties, and his Worship agreed with this. Plaintiff was-nonsuited with costs. .Mr. Hislop appeared for Fuller, and Mr. Fitzgibbon for Butler. _ THE LETTING OF THE HOUSE. In the case Johnstone v. Miller and Putter, plaintiff claimed .410 damages— £~i special damages and .£."> general—for general inconvenience to himself and his family, arising from (he limi-perfoniunce of a contract between himself and tlio defendants, Miller and Putter, who were acting as if they were the agents of one George Dawson, of Napier, and had let a house to the plaintiff. It Was set forth in the proceedings that Miller and Rutter were not the agents fcr the owner of the lions?, but they assim<ed to haYe authority from an agent ci' tho owiier, and, on such assumption, tied let tho premises. Bnt when plaintiff and his faruily sauglit to obtain possession,- It was found that the premises wore already occu. pied by a tenant, who had obtained them from .'m agent of the owner. • • His Worship said that, apart from the question of delegation of authority, ii. was a well-known principle that every agent who enters into an undertaking for valuable consideration, is bound to perform the undertaking. In this ease the defendants had let premises which had already been let by a duly-authorised agent, and. in his Worship's opinion, Miller and Putter were liable for Judgment was for plaintiff for i'G and coMs. Mr. Xeilson anpaoi-sd for plaiutiffi md jUlSfliastfe ""

SHIPPING FREIGHT CASK. Iu tho ense Jlnson, Struthers and Co., Ltd., v. tho Shaw, Savill, and Albion Co., Ltd., his Worship J Dr. M'Aithnr) roeonsidoral a. decision dolivored by him some twelve months ns;o, in which ho nonsuited tho plaintiff. That decision had boon appealed against, and his Honour (Sir Hubert Stout) had sol aside tho nonsuit and had remitted the caw to he reheard. 31r. Blair, who had appeared for tho plaintiii'p, had stated that ho was content with the evidenea already taken. Mr. \V. H. 1). Hell had appeared for the defendants. His Worship, after itoiixideriiiK the case, had ou'ifinally entered judgment for the the defendants. r The quest inn at issue was whet her tho vendor or the purchaser must 'bear tho ■ loss occasioned by the inipo-sibility of shipping freight from I'iclon to Oneliungo. Yestei'ilny Mr. A. Men! oath appeared for the plaintiffs, aiul Mr. H. K. Kvans for the, defendants. At the conclusion of tho henrint,' of the evidence tho case was adjourned pendinjr. legal argument. CIIAITF TRANSACTION. Laery and Co., Ltd., proceeded against Rotortsoir Uros., Ltd., on a claim for ,£IC 2s. Gd., said to bo baloneo duo on a trail--taction in chall'. Tho defendants counlerv claimed for an equal amount, alleging that they had suffered damage by reason of plaintiffs' failure to carry out tho contract between them as .-pecilied. Tho caso was adjourned for legal argument. . UNDEFENDED CASES. In the following undefended cases judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff by defaulhJohn Chambers and Son, Ltd., v. M'Kenzio and Broadbent, £2 25., costs Ms.; Harrington,'' N. 7,., Ltd., v. 0. !•'. Johnston, lGs. Gd., costs Bs.; Harris and Jlastin, Ltd., v. G. Gardiner and Sons, .£37 Its. lid., casts .£2.175.; John Herbert Hinlon v. Clifford Huggins. JU9 2s, lid., costs 18s. Oil.; Mrs. Ethel Lyons v. Mrs. Mary Smith, .£3 ss. Gd., costs 55.; H. G. Anderson and Co., Ltd., v. J. T. Takes, .-81 10s., costs 55.; E. B. Davies v. W. ,T. Jamioson. .13 155.. costs 10s.; E. lievnolds and Co., Ltd.. v. W. 11. Wiggins, £Ut 12s. Gd., costs £1 10s. Gd.; Gcocge Doughty and Co., v. liichard Uertram Hunt, .£SG "s. 4d., costs .C 3 18s. 3d.; E. lievnolds and Co., Ltd., v. W. H. Wiggins, .£ls fls., costs .01 s.i'. Cd.; J. ; H.'Clarkson and Co.. Ltd., v. Albert Edward Clement, Xll 10s. 3d., costs los. JUDGMENT SfMJtOXSES. Reginald L. Vale was ordered to pay M Gs. 3d. to 11, Kahn on or before October 8. , Loo Kee wn.s-ordcreil to pay X 33 IDs. 9d. to Wolleriiian and Co., on' or before October 8. ■ / E. F. Hiseocks was ordered (o pav F. Aslim .£6 13s. 10d., on or before October S.