MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2256, 25 June 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CfIEISTOHUBOH. Fbiday, June 24. [Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., 8.M., and J, E. Parker, Esq., J.P.I Civil Casbs. —Wilson (J. L) v Blake, claim £27 16?, being the balance due for commission on the purchase money reoeived at a sale effected by plaintiff of property formerly belonging to defendant. Mr G-arrick for plaintiff, Mr Joynt for defendant. Plaintiff deposed that, under instructions produced from defendant, he had sold to a Mr Togjyyn. a farm for £2952, for which he had reoeived £46 on account, and rendered an account for £27 16s, being in all 2£ per cent, on the purohase money. He had told Blake that that would be his charge, but added that when a settlement came he would not be particular to a pound or two. Plaintiff's wife had called on him and objected to tho amount. He offered to take £SO in settlement. Mrs Blake had brought with her a cheque for that amount, but she said sho must have £4 out of it, as she wanted to make some purchase!. After a very long conversation, he took the £46 and gave her a reoeipt on account for that amount. Since that time he had heard nothing more from defendant, and hence the present action. He sued for the full 2£ per cent., because defendant had negleoted to settle promptly the first smaller charge. In cross-examination he said he did not remember tolling her the receipt was on account, and he did not know whether or not she read it. Had seen Topham since the summons was issued. Did not ask him if he was to give evidence in this action, nor was he influenced by the conversation in the course he was now taking. Had never told Topham that, although in a joke, he had given a receipt on account; he meant to accept the payment, then made as a settlement in full. Hie account, the amount sued for, was first sent with the summons. He had written before that, asking for payment for tho balance due bim, but had not specified the amount. Thought he had earned the money. Tho work done for it bad taken more than two or three hours. Did not say to Mrs Blake, in answer to her remonstrance as to the charge, that it was a chanoe to be made the most of, as he might not have such another for years. W. Blake, the defendant, swore that he never signed the agreement produced. Had written his name in a book, but understood that was to instructions given to Wilson about the deposit to be received from Topham. Topham had oome to the farm at Lincoln with a letter from Wilson, and the sale had been effected between them. That wss on a Tuesday. On the following Friday, by appointment, he went to Wilson's office to meet Topham, whodid not oome. Witness left after waiting a long time. Before leaving he told Wilson the terms of the sale, and had signed in a book, as he thought, instructions written by Wilßon as to the amount of deposit to be paid by Topham if he should oome in the absence of witness. Wilson did not read over the writing. Witness afterwards mot Topham, went back with him to Wilson's and signed an agreement to sell, receiving a deposit. Did not remember the conversation detailed by Wilson about commission. Hearing afterwards, through Topham, that Wilson wanted £SO commission, witness gave his wife authority to go to town and settle the claim as best she oould. He could not go himself, as he was working up country. When he next saw bis wife she showed him a receipt for £46 on account. Gross-examined—He had never received a letter from Wilson demanding the balance. The first he heard of this claim was the summons. Mr Blake deposed to being sent by her husband to settle the claim. After much bargaining she paid Mr Wilson £46, and thought that was accepted by him as settlement in full. Never said to Wilson that she must have £4 out of tho £SO cheque she brought, to buy things in town with; her credit was good enough to enable her to get what she wanted if she had no money. Wilson did not rend to her the receipt, nor did she at the time eke got it. She thought it was a clearance of the claim. A day or two after, showing the receipt to a neighbor, she discovered it to be on account. Speaking to Topham afterwards, he told her that it did not matter, for Wilson had told him he did not mean to make any further claim. —Topham stated that naving been informed by Wilson that the farm was for sale, he wont to Blake's house, and then and there agreed to purchase it, leaving the settlement of terms to be made afterwards, which was done at Wilson's, as detailed by previous witnesses. Some time afterwards Wilson asked him to pay £SO out of the purchase money to cover commission. Later still Wilson told him in a jocular manner that Mrs Blake had paid him £46, thinking herself very clever, but he hod only given her a receipt on account, Witness here underwent a long cross-examina-tion, and, after considerable fencing, said he understood by that, that Wilson believed Mrs Blake thought she had paid in full. He also understood that Wilson meant to have £4 more, £SO being what he wanted for commission. This was the evidence. Counsel did not address the Court. His Warship said the evidence was very contradictory, and he felt great difficulty in coming to a conclusion upon it. It was a pity that Topham was so undecided in his recollection of the conversation with Wilson. It was pretty clear, however, that Wilson had at first asked for £6O, the extended claim being an afterthought. It wan also clear that Mrs Blake did not want SA out of the cheque to make purchases. Ik eeemed probable that Wilson, tired of haggling with Mrs Blake, had given a receipt on account, intending to get the other £4 from her husband. Mrs Blake, on her part, no doubt thought she had discharged the whole debt. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £4 with costs of Court and solicitor's foe £1 Is.—G arrick and Oowlishaw v Nathan, claim for £5 18s 2d for professional services. Mr Joynt appeared for plaintiff. A portion of the claim had been paid into Court, and defendant pleaded not indebted in any further amount. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount with costs and solicitor's fee £1 Is.—Houghton v Kinley, £5 for procuring a tenant for a house. The evidence showed that the houso had not been let in accordance with instructions. Judgment for dofendant with costs. Judgme-1» were also given for plaintiffs, in Angell v Patr I , lie lid, for goods delivered, and Hubbard v Bradley, £l, for use of a horse. Judgments wont by default for plaintiffs in Ruffel t Orabtree, £1 120 3d ; Dombrain v Wetherly, £2 ss; Angell v Bruce, £llss 2d ; Jackson v Moen, £l9 18s IOJd ; Same v Reed, £8 17s lOd ; City Council v Ncilas, £l3 18s ; and Langdown and Co. v De Blois, £1 10s. Garrick and Cowlishaw v Proudfoot and Maokay was adjourned for the hearing of evidence in Dunedin. Satubday, Junb 25. [Before R. Wostenra, Esq., J.P.] Dbunkenness—Jane Kinley, for being drunk and disorderly, was fined 5a and Is 6d cab hire. Vagbancy.—Pat Ryan was charged with having no lawful visible means of support. The police stated that prisoner was wellknown to them as a thoroughly idle and dissolute character. He loafed about drunken men and women of bad character. He was sentenced to one month's imprisonment with, hard labor.