Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIII, Issue 138, 19 May 1892, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

This Day. (Before Mr. Brabant, R.M.) j Kiwitea Koad Board v. Thomas Nelson* ; claim £6 9a for rates due. Mr Richmond ! for the plaintiff. The claim had been : paid, and judgment was given for 10s ' costs. ■ Same v. Edward Jones, claim £2 10s '■ 3d. Judgment by default for the amount claimed, with costs 6s. Same v. Gr. Richardson, junr., claim 19b 2d. The defendant paid the' money into Court, and judgment was given for the amount with costs 6s. James Huddlestone v. F. J. Chell, claim £10 ss. Mr Richmond for the plaintiff. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, defendant to pay £2 on the 23rd of May, and i' 2 per month afterwards. H. S. Muuro v. Barnett and Heppel, claim £5 8s 2^d, for goods supplied. The plaintiff deposed that he would not have made any claim against the defendants had they returned such goods as they had left when they were about to leave the neighbourhood, but, instead of doing so, they sold them very much under their value — £2 worth of goods for ss. Judgment was given for the amount claimed by consent with 10s costs. Percy Zohrab y R. Hunt ; claim, £25 for commission on the sale of the good will of the Bailway Hotel, Marton. Mr Saudilands for the plaintiff, and Mr Cash for the defendant. The plaintiff deposed he had entered into an agreement with the defendant to find him a purchaser for the good will of the hotel at £100 and the stock and furniture to be taken at a valuation; his commission on the sale to be £25 ; he then placed himself in communication with Mr Speight whom he knew was looking out for a house, and was in treaty with him when the defendant sold the good will himself to Mr Speight for £75 ; he was quite sure he would have obtained £100, as he had spoken to others purr chasing the good will ; the defendant had refused to pay bis commission. Cross-examined by Mr Cash: The plaintiff admitted that he had written a letter to the defendant advisiug that the good will could be disposed of at £75. Mr Speight stated that it was due to the plaintiff that he had made the purchase. He had been anxious to get the good will as cheaply as possible, but would have paid £100 had it been necessary to obtain it. He had paid L2lO 17s lOd for stock and furniture, L6O for two pianos, and L 75 for the good will. He considered five per cent was the usual commission charged on the sale ot hotel property. [Left sitting.] j