RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2673, 11 September 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., K.M.) JUDGMENT, Whittington v. Fish.—His Worship delivered judgment in this case as follows : As regards the first count in the plaint, I am of opinion that the contract between the plaintiff and defendant being one relating to the sale of land and not being in writing, it is void by the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds. After looking attentively at the various cases bearing on the subject, especially that of Kelly v. Webster, 12 (JB. 283, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has no remedy. It is possible, I think, that under a different state of facts, i.e., with an acknowledged and ascertained balance due, he might have sought redress in Equity; but under the circumstances of the present case, I fail to see where the plaintiff’s redress lies. Bespecting the second count, 1 am of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, the evidence disclosing a sale and delivery of the paper-rack in question. Upon the subject of the third count, I consider there was no sale of the gas fittings by the plaintiff to defendant, the evidence of the plaintiff' himself on the subject being, that defendant said to him “that if ho would let the gai fittings remain in the shop, probably some future tenant would buy them.” Judgment for plaintiff, 10s, each party paying his own costs. Civil Casks, Anderson v. Barker.—L3 Iss 6d. Mr Hislop for the plaintiff. This was a claim

for board and lodging and ns*? of furniture Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Weiss v. Lee.—L2 15s, for commission on tho sale of thirteen tons of iron. Mr Anderson for the defendant. The defendant is one of a firm of Chinese merchants. The plaint ff said he received instructions from the defendant to sell, and he agreed to do so on being allowed 5 per cent, commission on the transactions. He sold four tons to Mr Wilson, and nine tons to Mr Kincaid, and on application for the commission due it was refused without assigning a reason. Daniel Turner, clerk to Messrs Kincaid and Co., said on the defendant applying for payment he said he did not wish to pay the plaintiff commission The defendant’s account was : I meet Weiss in George street, and he say, “You sell iron!” I say “No—l want to send it to China.” He say “ The lads steal your iron.” About a fortnight after I see him again—he meet me in George street, and say “ Will you sell iron ?” “Yes,” Isay, “ I will sell if I get good price.” He say “ I don’t want commission—you better sell.” I say “ All right—if you don’t want commission you may sell it; so I tell him jirice.” By Mr Anderson : Did you want to send the iron to China ? Defendant: Yes, I tell him so—l didn’t want to sell it in Dunedin., I tell him if you can get the price sell it. His Worship considered there was nothing to take it out of the ordinary routine of business, and as the defendant had availed himself of the plaintiff’s services, he was bound to pay for them. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount. Marshall v. Grennan. Llo.—This was a claim for the amount of au 1.0. U. Judgment by default for the p amtiff for the amount claimed. Knight v. F. Oaten.—Ll4 for cash lent. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for tho amount with costs. Cohen v, Grennan.—Llo, the amount of a promissory note. Judgment by default for the amount of the bill with costs. Hutchinson v. Hagan.—l7s for goods aupp’ied. The plaintiff said the woman who had charge of the defendant’s children ap. plied for boots, as they wore without shoes, and they were supplied iti the absence of the defendant, who promised to pay for them. On being questioned by the Bench, the defendant admitted having cohabited with the woman. His Worship read the clause in the law rendering men cohibiiing with women liable for debts contracted by them. Judgment for the plaintiff with costs.