MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1994, 1 February 1907, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

UNDEFENDED CASES. (Before Mr Barton, S.M.) Yesterday His Worship dealt with the following undefended cases:—R. Hannah and Co. v. Lysaght Pliillpot Bullen, £1 2s 6d and costs; Albert Michael Lewis (Mr Blair) v. Hani Ruru, £5 13s 5d and costs. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. There were only two judgment summonses before the Court, one of which was adjourned until the 28th J\Jarcli. In the case of Clavton and Nisbett v. Alex. Curtis, Mr Blair appeared for plaintiffs and asked for an order.—His Worship made an order tor £l2 15s 4d, in default of payment. 13 days’ imprisonment. A FISH : CASE. Leach and Richards v. Geo. Colebrook: Mr IT. Bright appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Stock for defendant. Plaintiffs claimed from defendant for fish supplied to him to the value of £l6 Bs.—Percy Richards, one of the plaintiffs, said he and Mr Leach carried on the occupation of fishermen. In November last lie saw defendant, who asked him if he could let him have fish. Plaintiff replied, “'tos-” , Defendant asked terms. Plaintiff said Is 6d per bundle, and tlie large fish would have a price put on them, defendant being at liberty to take them or leave them. After the conversation he (plaintiff) delivered two lots of fish to defendant and received payment. There was no suggestion after this that defendant should sell for plaintiff’s firm on commission. Plaintiff did not deliver to defendant any of the fish in dispute, nor did he hire a cart from defendant.—By Mr Stock: He had been dealing in fish in Gisborne for about five or six months. Had sold some fish to Mr Owen. He. (Mr Owen) deducted 25 per cent. 'Plaintiff got 2s a bundle for liis fish retail. He got that price in December last. Defendant had agreed to pay liim for liapuka at so much per pound. Air Leach, the other plaintiff, deposed to delivering, fish at defendant’s shop. The four hapukas supplied to defendant ran to 1001 b each. The three large ones he put down at 25s each. He could have sold the first privately for the money. Plaintiff gave dates on which he delivered fish to defendant. He had never hired a cart' from defendant.—By His Worship: The prices plaintiffs charged defendant were wholesale prices. They were getting 4d per pound for liapuka wholesale.—Thomas Strang, a laborer formerly in defendant’s employ, said ho heard defendant ask Richards if he would let him have all the fish ho wanted, and Richards said he would. The price agreed upon was Is 6d per bundle. Ho was in defendant’s shop when the four hapukas were brought ill They were about 1001 b weight each, and plaintiff said they were 25s each. Witness told defendant the puce, and lie said, “I suppose they ore worth it,” and witness entered the price in a book. Two or three days later defendant when he saw them ridiculed tho price.—By Mr Bright: Was left in charge of tho shop durng defendant’s absence.—By His Worship: liapuka brought 4d per Hi wholesale and Cd retail.—John Owens, fish hawker, said he had had small transactions with Air Richards and Air Leach. He took all the fish and returned 25 per cent, off retail price. Only got Is Gd a bundle retail ijl December, the usual price at that time. Price ol hapqka in December about 4d per lb wholesale. Had never scon a hapuka worth 25s.— Georgo Colebrook said he agreed with Richards to take fish and pay him accordmg to market value. Agreed to give Is 6d for first two lots. They further agreed that if fish went down in prico he should pay less, hapuka to be paid for according to size. Places charged account were the prices he received for them. He weighed the hapuka. The biggest, weighing 601 b, was sold for los to a wholesale customer. The others sold for 3d per 10. The three medium-sized hapuka weighed 181 b.—By Air Stock: He had no agreement with defendants to freeze fish at their expense. Thera was no mention of commission. The Alagistrate said that the evidence was conflicting. -Defendant, claimed commission, but ho could not say that there was any evidence in. support of it. _ln regard to the hapuKa, too high a price had been charged for that.—-Judgment was given for plaintiff for £l4 Is, costs J oS. „