Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA

FRIDAY, DIAY 6th

(Before C. 11.. Orr-Walker, Esq., S.M.)

RESERVED JUDGMENT

A. J. Wagner (Dir Joyce) v. E. TTeichelmahn (Mr Park) claim for £25 7s Od, Commission on sale of a Buick car.

His Worship gave his reserved decision as follows :

The case set up by plaintiff is that he was engaged as agent to sell the car at £450. His evidence is not corroborated by his own witnesses who assert the price named was £SOO. The evidence on both 'sides was unsatisfactory from the fact that the witnesses were depending on their memory of conversations and statements in which they were taking no particular interest at the time. The plaintiff has failed to.satisfy me the. there was a concluded contract ol agency between him and defendant. If a commission agent is keen enough for business as to try and strike a bargain in a place and under circumstances divvulged in this 'case, he should be also wise enough to get a contract in writing, sotting out the essential conditions of his agency, or at least have those conditions specifically and unequivocally determined between himself and his proposed principal. He must take the consequences of his want of care and his failure to give satisfactory proof to the Court of his demand. Plaintiff is non-suited with costs. Solicitors fee £2 2s. He did not think the evidence of King was necessary or revelant. His expenses will not be allowed against plaintiff, nor will those of the other witnesses.

ANOTHER RESERVED DECISION. William Wall and Dlargaret Wall (Mr Murdoch) v. John Searle, Edward Searle and George Searle, (Dir Joyce). This was a case heard at Ross, the plaintiffs claiming £35 3s damages for loss of sheep caused by a dog owned by the plaintiffs. His Worship gave judgment for rlnintiffs against John Searle only, hold ing lie was the owner. Judgment would be for £l9 10s costs and court costs £1 19s, witnesses £5 8s 9d, qpunsel’sfees £2 12. OTHER BUSINESS. Other business set down for hearing was struck out, having been settled.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19210506.2.17

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 6 May 1921, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
345

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA Hokitika Guardian, 6 May 1921, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA Hokitika Guardian, 6 May 1921, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert