RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COOK.

Evening Star, Issue 3970, 15 November 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COOK.

Monday, November 15. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Duncan v. Davis, and Same v. Holmes.— This caatt had been partly heard at a former sitting, and Mr B. Cook, who appeared for. plaintiff, now expressed his willingness to submit to a nonsuit. Plaintiff was nonsuited accordingly. Logan v. Le Batt.—An application to repo session of Ao. 8, immigrants’cottages, at Kens ngton. His Worship pronounced the usual rder of ejectment, to take effect after the expiry of a a fortnight. Robert Patterson, stonemason, v. John Handyslde, sheep farmer.—Claim 1-17 Is, balmce due on building a house on defe» lant’s station. Mr F R, Chapman appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Kettle for defendant. Judgment was given for Ll2los, with costs Gillies and Another v. Cross.—Action for commission L 6, for obtaining m-moy on loan the defendant wanted L6OO or L7OO for three years at 9 per cent. The plaintiff ( .iilies) went accordingly with the defendant and. examined the property, and being satisfied with the security he placed it before <. lender who approved of the security and authorised the plaintiffs to offer the defendant i .6uo <m ! o an. ihe plaintiffs communicated to the defendant that the security was approved and the money (Lo*K)) obtained. The defendant then said ho wanted L7OO, and the negotiation was determined. Three days after the defendant borrowed for two years, through another broker, the sum of money belonging to the same lender, which had been offered him by the plaintiffs. In giving judgment, his Worship said there was a discrepancy in the evidence in regard to the terms for which the loan was wanted, when the application made to the plaintiffs. Ihe weight of evidence on this point was in favor of the plaintiffs. Some co fusion had been created through the lender having intimated to two brokers that hehad the money to lend, and in his negotiating with the defendant through another broker after he had been informed bv the plaintiffs of the security and had approved of it. There was harahip on the defendant, who had already paid commis'■oon to another broker, living tun,her liable, but m the whole circumstances of the case he (his Wo shipl had no douht that the plaintiffs were entitled to some remuneration for their trouble in the matter, and judgment would therefore be for the plaintiffs, for L2 2s, with costs. Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the fol-lo-ving cases, with costs:—Henderson, Law and Co. v. Wm. White, of Tokomairiro, L 8 6s 4d, fifty-one bags of damaged salt; Bascoe and Co. v. Cosgrove, of Napier, LSB 19s 6d, on a dishonored acceptance.