RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIII, Issue 1573, 20 August 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

(Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) Tuesday, August 38. Murdoch Callan, remanded, was brought up on-the charge of stealing an overcoat from Gilmer's Hotel. Witnesses called by Mr Perkins for the defence proved that he had worn the coat openly, and had refused to sell it, not knowing to whom it belonged. The Magistrate considered the offence was inexcusable on the part of the prisoner, he. having ample employment, and sentenced him to three months' hard labor in Hokitika. ; Mary Ann Rodgers was charged with assaulting an old man James Bruce, who appeared with a piece of plaster on; a prominent part of his bald head; The accusation was that she inflicted the wound with complainant's, own sauce-pan, and in his own house. The defence was a denial, and an explanation that the wound was received by the complainant by his falling into a ditch, where he h^,d thrown the defendant, to her very serious injury, requiring continued medical treatment. The Magistrate accepted the accusation, and fined the defendant L 2. There was a similar charge against David Morris, by the same complainant, but it was dismissed, there being not the slightest evidence of the offence. A counter charge was brought by Mrs Rodgers* again3t Bruce, but it was also dismissed. The following were among the civil cases heard : — PROFESSIONAL OPINION. Wylde v. the Mayor, Borough Council, and Burgesses of Greymouth were the name 3of the parties to a suit on the part of Mr Wylde for a claim of L 7 7s for professional services as an engineer. Mr Newton, who appeared for the plaintiff, related the grounds upon which the claim was brought. In J uly last, the Borough Council authorised Mr Johnston, Town Surveyor, to procure professional opinion as to the best method of preventing river encroachments at Richmond Quay. In accordance with instructions, he employed Messrs Wylde, Dobson, Young, and Cooper. They met, and gave a report. They also agreed to make a uniform charge, making it as low asthey could. They sent their charge to the Council. The Council considered it was too high, and resolved that two guineas to each gentleman should be paid. Mr Wylde had also given an opinion as to the railway viaduct, for which two guineas were charged, and that amount was not disputed. Mr Whall produced the minute of the Council instructing Mr Johnston. He believed the Mayor had. verbally asked Mr Wylde's opinion upon the viaduct. He had paid Mr Cooper's account, and Mr Cooper had accepted the amount which had been agreed upon. The plaintiff (Mr Wylde) recited his experience as an engineer. The charge made was the lowest he could possibly make. He had also suggested an alteration in the mode of carrying out the railway, and the charge for that opinion was also very reasonable. (In reply to Mr Perkins, who appeared for the Corporation) : It was arranged that Mr Dobson should write the report on the quay. He (Mr Wylde) signed it. They were engaged the best part of a day. He had known 500 guineas charged for a similar opinion to that which they had given. Mr Johnston could not give an opinion as to what might be charged. He was never employed to give professional opinion. He had earned five guineas in less time, but that was not for professional; opinion. There was work attached to it. (To Mr Perkins) ; He had not exr pressed an opinion as to the amount being excessive. He had kept strict silence on the matter. He did not say that he was surprised at the amount The Council asked him if he had made a bargain before he entered upon the consultation. He neither said one thing nor another about the amount. The Mayor, Mr Masters; had advised him to consult Mr Wylde as to the viaduct, and for ■ that opinion an amount was named. Mr Dobson considered that, in this case, five guineas was a reasonable fee to charge. He should decidedly not take less. (To Mr Perkins) : The engineers consulted had discussed and agreed upon the fee which they should charge. He was himself charging that amount. Mr Geisow (who had not been employed in the consultation) considered five guineas a fair charge. ; Mr Perkins submitted, as a non-suit point, that this was purely a matter of professional opinion, and, that being so; the amount charged was not recoverable in Court. He quoted, as authorities, " Ad 7 dison on Contracts," "Chitty on Contracts," and cases from "Precedents and Pleadings." According to these, he contended that members of an honorary profession, such as that of barristers and physicians, could not recover. He, acting as counsel, could not recover for an opinion given. Mr Wylde had stated that the charge made was for purely professional opinion, and he had stated that 500 guineas might be charged for a similar opinion. Who was competent to contest such a charge ? Was there anybody to assess it? If any man. said, "My opinion is worth so much, and I claim so • much," was the Court to decide its worth? It was impossible for the Court to fix the amount. Mr Cooper, as one of the party of consultation, had accepted two guineas. Again, according to the Resident Magistrates Courts Act, there was no power to recover. What was the debt ? Not for goods supplied, or for work and labor, i Mr Wylde distinctly declined to recognise the question as to the time during which he had been engaged, inasmuch as he declared that his professional opinion was worth so much, without regard to time. If he did not choose to accept the amount offered he must accept a non-suit. Mr Newton considered the defence a ', remarkable one, It was perfectly well known that harristers and physicians could ] not recover, although he thought there , had been an. Act passed by which the ; latter could recover for professional ad- ■ vice. Barristers had really to depend i upon the honor of their clients, It was ( an entirely different case with civil ( engineers, and it was new to know that , engineers could not recover for profes- ! sional services. Mr Perkins assumed \ that it was an honorary profession, but , properly there were only two honorary \ professions — physic and law. How greatly "honorary" the third learned ( profession— the clerical profession — might , be, it was difficult to define, It was c said that there had been no work, but j there had been actual inspection and an . actual report. '

Mr Perkins again submitted that the services were houorary professional services, and that it was not competent for the Court to deal with the question. The plaintiff said himself he sued for professional opinion, and not for work and labor done. Where an opinion was given, it was simply an honorary matter, and the Court could not deal with it. Suppose all the work proposed were carried away- — f ■ who then was to . assess : the worth.of .' his opinion? If he was ; entitled to fix the value of his opinion, he might i claim 500 guineas. The matter was one which simply depended upon the honor ob the Council. Mr Newton repeated that it was the first time he had heard that the profession of an engineer was an honorary profession, and he contended that they were entitled to recover. Because opinions "were professional it did not follow that they were honorary. The Magistrate did not sustain- the nonsuit point raised by Mr Perkins/'' ■■. ' After further argument between counsel, the Magistrate, without remark, gave judgment for. the amount; claimed. ! A QUESTION OF COMMISSION;, ; ,r.. De Costa, v. Hunt.— Mr Guinness for plaintiff, Mr Perkins for defendant.. r . This was a claim for L6o commission upon sale of premises' known: as. Club Hotel, Mawhera Quay, Greymbutfy the purchase money being LI2OO. Mr Guinness stated that the sale of the premises was put into the hand,* of the plaintiff by the defendant, and upon this he founded his claim, he having found a purchaser. H. Hunt : I was formerly landlord of the Club Hotel. ' I never placed ' that property in De Costa's hands for sale. I never told him to find a customer! I never employed him. I told him two years ago I wished to sell. I have never said I would give five per cent, commission. I never told any person thatDe Costa had instructions from, me to sell. •I remember receiving an account from De Costa last Saturday week, t never tbid Raphael that De Costa had received instructions. I said De Costa hadj cput something down upon an envelope. I don't know what it was. I said De Costa « wrote something upon an envelope between Ist and sth May. De Costa came^ to me and asked if 1 had, made up my^^ mind to sell my house. I said : I had for two years, past, and was determined to sell, iE a buyer could be had. De Costa asked what the price would be. I said LIOOO, without stock or furniture. , He never asked about commission, I said I had a purchaser for Llooo, ; and that 'fialf cash was offered. That was on first Monday in May. It was on the following Tuesday when De Costa came to me. He then wrote . nothing more than the price on the envelope, 1 never gave him instructions previously. I never spoke to, De Costa about the ground rent. I don't remember speaking about it after the last races. I never spoke about commission. In, former conversations I may have spoken to De Costa about ground rent. I saw. SeebecVon one Monday in May, before I saw De Costa. This was before De Costa wrote on the envelope. The bargain Was then thrown off; I never saw De Costa r or Seebeck, until last Thursday. week about business. It was not then closed ; Seebeck came back in the afternoon and he advanced his offer to me in my back room. No employment of agents was mentioned. I told Seebeck that no decided answer was to be given till the Hth. instant. I spoke to Dupre about it. I never told Dupre that De Costa had it for sale. I never asked De Costa to value one of the rooms,? or. to see the value thereof. I never asked De Costa to value anything. On no occasion did De Costa do any valuation for me.

R. De Costa : lam a commission agent. I haVe valued almost all hotels i'abld during the last seven years. I have known Hunt several years. I was instructed by Hunt about 12 months ago to ; sell as : agent when Hunt complained of his.health, and wanted to sell. Hunt asked me if I could do anything ; sometime afterwards I was speaking to Seebeck about it. I said it was a good opportunity for him. > Nothing was then done ; afterwards when Seebeck sold out of the Victoria Hotel, I Spoke several times about Hunt. ' Seebeck then asked me to get final terms from. Hunt, and also all particulars connected with it. I went to Hunt about the , month ,of • March. I had no conversation with; him then. Hunt said he would ; call at my store in the afternoon. I said I had a very good man. Hunt then gave me instructions. I took an envelope and wrote dowu as Hunt instructed me. They were written down by me in his presence. I put down membs as shown, "Hunt's house LBOO, stock and furniture 'at valuation, 8 bed-rooms, L 42 paid, from which he receives LlB from under' tenants!" Said to ', Hunt that would leave L 24. I calculated it at per week, making it about 8s weekly rental. On one corner of the envelope the word " terms " wbs written, and on the other corner the words ;" 5 per cent " were also written. I desired to make myself safe when the' transaction was about to be closed, and Tasked Hunt what he would, give as commission. He said whatever is the usual charge. I v answered 5 per cent. Hunt promised me 5 per cent. He put his hand on my shoulder and said, " Go, my boy, and get as much more as you can." I then went and saw Mr Seebeck, and said I had instructions from Hunt. Seebeck asked about payment. I said T had arranged about that, and could get it upon terms. I then saw Hunt, and said the business was likely to be concluded. I went into the little parlor and valued the room In his presence. After telling the amount, Hunt said, "Well you are within/afew pounds of what I value them myself." Afterwards I looked at the pictures. It came, to my knowledge that Seebeck offered Hunt LIOOO, . I went to Seebeck and told him \ was surprised at his going to Hunt, as it might lead him to suppose that two persons were looking after his house. The envelope instruction^ were * given months before May. I was once present with Mr Hunt and Mr Hosie. No instructions were then given not to sell. This was about the middle of May. Mr Hunt never withdrew his agency, •■ Nothing more was done except seeing Seebeck, whom I often saw. I only heard of the bargain being completed last Tues.» day evening. I went and saw Seebeck afterwards, and then went and saw Hunt and presented my account. , He slamme.d the door in my face, TJie charge js fair and reasonable. I refused to give up, the name of my buyer. ' "" | By Mr Perkins : I did not give up purchaser's name. I have been employed. in valuing hotels. I cannot say that I have ever been instrumental in selling a hotel. I have spoken to Hunt often about this. (For continuation of '£ews see Uh page.)