RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3290, 5 September 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, September 5. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Brown v. Bessac. --In this case, -which had been adjourned in order, that information might be obtained as to a sum of money said to have been hj. ft by defendant on board the vessel in which he was on the point of leavincr when arrested, Mr Stewart, who appeared for plaintiff, asked that judgment should now be given, as no news had been received by the Albion as to the matter. Judgment for plaintiff for 1.80, with LlO 12s 6d costs ; in default of payment, distress ; in default of distress, three months’ imprisonment. [?. 'Evans v. Edward Brown. —Claim L 62 10s, being commission on L.2,500, the amount of sale money f -r certain property sold for defendant by plaintiff, as estate a O-ent. Mr Edward Cook appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Stout for the defendant.Plaintiff stated that he negotiated the sale of the York Hotel and stables for defeadant, the purchaser being Mr W. Larnacli. Defendant instructed witness verbally to sell at a certain price, his comission to be at the rate of 2£ per cent. Witness took trouble in connection with the matter, speaking to, amongst others, Mr Oolquhoun, of tbe Junction Hotel, and Mr Kennedy, late of the Condon .Hotel. The offer of the latter was accepted, Mr Larnach acting as his principal. The sale was effected, and witness charged defendant 2$ per cent, as agreed, and which is the usual rate. Defendant refused to pay the amount, intimating that he thought witness would be paid by the purchaser. Cross-examined : The rate of commission was agreed upon before May 7. r lhe two letters produced May 12 and May 14, are in my handwriting. Defendant did mention the name of Mr Larnach as likely to make an offer -for or to advance money on tbe property.-—William Kennedy : Plaintiff offered me the property in question, and I told him that I might get him a purchaser if he fixed a definite price. Plaintiff named 1,2,500, which I and Mr Larnach declined, but it appears that afterwards Mr Larnach purchased for that amount.—William Larnaeh : Plaintiff had several interviews with me respecting tbe purchase of the property. He was acting as agent for defendant, I suppose. Finally, I told plaintiff to bring defendant to me, which he did, and the purchase was effected. Previous to plaintiff s negotiating with me T had not made defendant an offer to purchase, but only to advance money cm the property. Cross-ex-amined : I remember defendant at one time stating tha-, rather than come to a certain arrangement, he would sell his property for L 2,500. —W, O. Ball, estate agent, stated that the authorised rate of commission on the sale of property was 2£ percent, on sums over LSOO Mr Stout contended that the case turned upon the question whether the agreement as to the rate of commission was made or not, and defendant would prove that such was not the case. — Edward Brown : I never placed my property in the hands of plaintiff for sale, but have spoken to him about it. I received the letter and the authority produced, the latter of which—to the effect that I would pay him 24 per cent, commission on the sale—plaintiff wished me to sign, but I refused. 1 completed the sale with Mr Larnach myself. Cross-examined ; I was not particularly anxious to get rid of the property. —Judgment reserved.

Davidson v. Brain.—Claim, L4l 5s 6d, for wages. Mr Stewart appeared for plain tiff; Mr Stout for defendant, who pleaded a set-off of L 8 12s 4d, also disputing certain items of the claim, and paying into Court the amount admitted, viz , i .17 5s Bd. Plaintiff stated that he entered the service of de'endautin January, 1871, his wages being 20s per week. After being there two years, gave notice that he was going to leave, upon wh'ch defendant agreed to give him 30s per week, at which rate he stopped till August 15 iu the present year. When leaving, defendant made out an account showing that only L 27 7a 6d was due to witness, and on witness saying it was more, defendant told him to summon him. Cross-examined : Did have a dispute with my former employer, ami sue him, borrowing a horse from present defendant in order to leave that summons. It is not a “ matter of course ’’ with me to sue my employers. Defendant did say that it would be unfair for me to leave him during harvesting, and that he would give me 30s per week during that time. The setoff is for timber, for which defendant is to nay for me, and is correct. —George Prain, a farmer at the Taieri: Plaintiff has been in my service for over two years. At harvest time this year he said he should leave, upon which I offered him 10« a week extra till the harvest was over. Plaintiff never asked me for money without getting it. Crossexamiued j I was paying some harvest men 7s per day, but they were liable to leave at a minute’s notice.—James Aitken, another farmer at the Taieri, stated that farm laborers never get more than 20s per week all the year round, but get more at harvest time, which lasts about six weeks.—His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff substantially for the amount paid into Court, the exact amount being LlB 6s 2d, with costs.

Judgment was given by default in the following cases Joel v. Milton : Claim, LS6 12s, for dishonored acceptance and interest thereon. Ziele v. Joseph Havtie: Claim, L 97 16s 3d, for two dishonored acceptances, groceries supplied, and interest.