MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2107, 24 November 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHEIBTOHUBOH. Tuesday, Novembeb 23. [Before J. Marshman and J. B. Parker, Bsqs., J.P.’s,] Civiii Oases. —Ferguson v Hogg. Plaintiff, a blacksmith, rented a shop by verbal agreement from Hogg, as bo says, at a rental of £65 per annum. After paying at that rate for three months he received a bill for the fourth month claiming at the rate of £75 per annum. He did not pay this and another month elapoed, when the bailiffs were put in for two months’ rent at £75. No notice had been given of intention to raise the rent. fTkn VoilifFo VAVA Bllfl. ATlfi tVlfi fnVSfITSt

claim was for £1 6s 3d excess paid for rent and £3 13a for damages sustained in consequence of the distraint. Mr Joyce appeared for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. Defendant alleged that an agreement had been made in writing, but was lost. It stipulated that after three months occupation the rent should be increased, as it had been, and that it had been fully understood such was the case. Defendant and his wife, who was called, however, could not say that notice of the intended increase had been given. The Bench said this was evidently the result of one of those loose agreements that people will make, notwithstanding every day’s experience of the trouble arising from them. In the absence of the written document or of evidence that notice of increase of rent had been given, judgment must be for the excess of rent paid and damages, one guinea, in all £2 7s 3d, with cost*. City Council v Birch, 6a 6d, for aoavengering during last March quarter. Defendant prodnoed a receipt for the amount, and judgment was given for defendant with costa, and Ga for loss of hia time. City Council v Botham, 13s, for scavengering j judgment for plaintiffs, with costs. Mullholland v Plgram, £5 12s 6d; Mr Joyce for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. This was a claim for five weeks’ wages as general servant, and_ one month's wages in lieu of a month’s notice. Plaintiff said she had been discharged because she asked for the wages that were due to her. Defendant alleged that after being remonstrated with on account of her dirty habits, plaintiff had become very insolent. She demanded her wages, and because the money was not immediately forthcoming she quitted of her own accord. After hearing the evidence, judgment was given for plaintiff for £4 2s 6d and costs. Thompson v Pawsey, £l7 6a, for services in negotiating a loan. Mr lioughnan for plaintiff, Mr Spaokman for defendant. In 1878 plaintiff, as he says, was authorised to raise £2OOO for defendant on certain property. The security not finding favor, the amount was reduced first to £ISOO and finally to £IOOO, which amount Harper, Harper and Scott agreed to lend on condition that certain instalments due to them of the purchase money of a property sold by them to B. S. Pawsey, son of the defendant, were ] paid out of the money advanced. Plaintiff alleges that the said B. 8. Pawsey was the authorised agent of his father in the loan transaction, and that ho agreed to the conditions imposed by Harper and 00. Mort- ; gages of the security offered by Pawsey, sen., were prepared and actually signed by the latter when he abandoned the contract, and by favor of Harper and 00. it was allowed to lapse. Mr Thompson brought an action in this court about two months ago for the same amount as now sued for, being his charges for services rendered in procuring the loan. When heard, in the opinion of the Bench he neglected to prove that Pawsey junior was the authorised i agent of his father, and he was nonsuited on that point. Mr Thompson now swore posi- • tively that the sen had, in his presence, been appointed agent of the father. Defendant, i on the other hand, deposed that ho had never i made his son his agent, nor was he aware of the conditions attached to the loan by Harper and 00. until after signing the mortgage,

which ho had done in the expectation of receiving the £IOOO in full. When he found what was really the case he at once repudiated the bargain. John Fawsoy, another son of the defendant, corroborated bis father’s statement generally, and said he was not aware of B, S. Pawscy having been apDfiinted his father’s agent in their dealings wi'.h plaintiff. The agency could not have existed without his knowing of it. Mr Spaokman said if plaintiff had produced B. S. Pawsey, it would have settled the matter. As it was, the balance of evidence was against the con* tontion of the plaintiff, and he claimed anonsuit on the same grounds as before, viz., that, granting plaintiff’s assertion to be true as to Mr B. 8. Pawsey’s agreeing to the condition of the loan imposed by Harper and Co., there had been no authorisation by the defendant for that agreement. >Mr Loughnau said B, S. Pawsey would have been called by plaintiff, only they thought he would have been in attendance on behalf of the other side. He new asked for an adjournment to produce him, Mr Spaokman objected to an adjournment, and the Bench agreeing with him, plaintiff was nonsuited with costs. Morgan v Marks, £lO 10s for commission on the sale of certain sections of land. Mr Loughnan for plaintiff, Mr Beeves for defendant. Tho evidence showed that the sections had been placed in plaintiff’s hands for sale, and afterwards given to and sold by another commission agent without being withdrawn by notice from plaintiff. On the application of Mr Beeves the case was adjourned till the 30th inst. for production of evidence as to usage, the Bench stating that as far as they could see plaintiff was quite entitled to his commission. Judgment wont for plaintiffs by default in Oity Council v Wood, 13s ; v Levy, £llss ; v Suckling, 6s 6d; v Eodwell, 6s 6d; v Walsh, 10s ; v Amishaw, 6» 6d; v Hartland, 13s; v Pearce, 6s 6d; Howell v Gallon, £ll 6i; Same y Fettitt, 6s 6d ; and Davies v Campbell, £1 Os lid, Judgment was for plaintiffs in Oity Council v O’Brian, 4s 6d j Grant v Goddey, £4 16s; and Pegley v Pepper, £2los. In Gregg r Taafe a nonsuit was entered.