MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2153, 19 January 1881, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

OHBISTOHtTBOH. Tuesday, Januaey 18. [Before J. Marsbman, B. Westenrn, J. B. Parker, and G L. Lee, Esqrs., J.P.’s.] OlYlli Oases. —Morgan v Marks. This was a ease in which plaintiff claimed commission, £lO 10s, on the sale of certain property that had been placed in his hands for disposal, but which had been sold by another commission agent with the consent of defendant, who had not previously withdrawn his instructions from plaintiff. The case had been beard on December 21st, when the Bench said they were of opinion that plaintiff was entitled to his commission as claimed, but at the request of Mr Beeves, who appeared for defendant, and who stated that he thought he could bring evidence as to custom which would alter their opinion, the case was adjourned till this day, when Mr Loughnan appeared for plaintiff, Mr Holmes for defendant. After a long argument as to what was the issue before the Court, counsel for defendant put Mr H. B. Alport, an auctioneer of twentyfive years’ experience, into the box. Ho deposed that it was the custom to take instructions in writing. If, after that precaution, sales were withdrawn without notice, the agent could claim his full commission, but if there had been no writing the vendor wai not bound to pay. The Bench said that in this case they had decided on the evidence, that though there had been no writing the nature of the transaction had been such as to place the agent in the same position as if the strictest requirements of custom had been complied with. Witness said, in that case, of course, plaintiff was entitled to his commission. Mr Holmes then went into a very protracted argument on the legal bearing of the case, and Mr liougbnan made a short address, in which he complained that after being virtually decided, the [case was allowed to be re-opened on a totally different issue. The Bench finally decided that as the sale had not been completed by the aid of plaintiff alone, he could not recover full commission. He was, however, entitled to compensation for the share he had in the business, and judgment was given for plaintiff for £5 ss, with costs, and solicitor’s foe £1 Is. Wood v Saunders, £6 6j ; claim for value of a watch taken away six months ago in mistake by defendant, who resides at Ashburton. Mr Joyce appeared for plaintiff; defendant did > not appear. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs, and solicitor's fee. City Council v Broad, £3 14s, for rent of part of Market Beserve. Defendant did not appear. In answer to a question, the representative of the Council admitted that the amount due for rent was only £3 10s, the balance, 4s, being the costs of a former hearing of the same case, when plaintiffs got judgment. The Bench remarked first upon the manner in which the plaint was drawn, being as for rent, when it was really composed of two items ; and, secondly, on the strange proceeding taken in suing a second; time for an amount for . which judgment bad already been given. Judgment for defendant, Avon Boad Board v Crowley, £2 6s, due on a special rate for asphalting path in Fapanui road. Plaintiffs put in proof of the rate having been struck, of defendant’s quota having been demanded, and a lease of the premises tenanted by defendant. The latter document set out that all rates levied during the tenancy were to bo paid by the tenant. Mrs Crowley deposed that the claim was made long before the work was completed, and when it was finished witness’ tenancy had already expired two months. The Bench considered that as defendant had not derived, and could not derive, any benefit from the work, the claim did not seem fair or reasonable ; and seeing that tbe Board had power to recover from the landlord, they bad better do so. Judgment for defendant, with costs. Bell v Talbot. This was a claim for wages as general servant for one month, at £3O per annum, £2 10s. Mr Joyce appeared for defendant. Plaintiff alleged that after being kept a week she was dismissed for no reason from her employment, and offered only 12s for what she bad done. Defendant alleged that plaintiff was incompetent and of dirty habits. The Bench considered this as proved, and gave judgment for plaintiff for 12s, without costs. Goodger v Wadey, £l2. Mr Stringer for plaintiff ; Mr Holmes for defendant. Defendant, a contractor for laying down a tramway in High street, having, as it was alleged, on the night of 14th June last left in High street a heap of stones unguarded by fence or light, a cab owned by plaintiff and driven by one of his men ran into tbe pile ; the horse came down, injuring himself severely, and tbe cab was damaged considerably. The amount claimed was what plaintiff considered reasonable compensation for tbe injuries sustained. After hearing very lengthy evidence, tbe Magistrates said it had been proved that the accident had occurred through the act of defendant, and he had to a certain extent admitted his liability. Judgment would bo for the cost of repairing tbe vehicle. The claim for damages to the horse seemed to have lagged in its production, as did, also, a charge for the hire of a cab while the injured one was under repair ; judgment for plaintiff for £5 17s fid, with costs of Court, solicitor’s fee £1 Is, and expenses of five witnesses at Ids each. Judgments were given for plaintiffs by default, with costs, in—Beaver v Brnnton, £1 3s fid ; Avon Boad Board v Osrtman, £1 13a ; Oother v foster, £5 ; and Bullock v Olliver, £l6. Hobday v Crawford was adjourned till the 18th February, Williamson v Felton till the 25th instant.