R. M. COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1714, 21 May 1886, Page 4

R. M. COURT.

YtiSTERDAt* (Before R. "Ward, Esq., R.M., and Messrs McNeil and PrendeimUst, J.'sP.). A. S. Baker y. J. Jessop. Mr Pirani appeared on behalf of the prosecutor, and informed the Bench that Mr Baker could not attend at Court that day as he was bu?ily employed at Napier, and had informed liiq f that if Mr Jessop would only give up possession of the property he would, withdraw the case altogether. 'Mr Hawkins ..read a letter sent to his client, tW accused, by Mr Baker, asking him to come to terms and not have any wore bother. He also stated that he was instructed by. his client that the complainant had offered the accused £15 if he would agree to withdraw the case. The accused- remarked he had had Mr, Baker t^ce^Q.see him re a withdrawal of the charge. , «. ■ ■'•••;• . . *■ The Bench dismissed the case as there was no prosecution. , _ . Constable Manning t. Mere Kane, j drunkenness and using obscene language m the Square. Accused pleaded guilty j to the first charge but denied the bad language. Mr Pirani appeared for the accused.' The offence being proved by the constable for being; drunk the accused wa> fined ss, and for.using # the obscene *Hnguage one hour's imprison ment. , „* . Thos. Hall v. W. H. Young. Claim £9 2s 4d. cash lent and goods sold to defendant. TseTendant wrofe ' to the Court offering to pay: lOs^frsr *montli/*wlnch plaintiff agreed to accept, .the Bench remarking that the* acceptance of the offer was a g*enerous action on the part of pluintiff, - , • Borough 'Council v. Bradley. Claim £ for rates. Defendant saiJ he would pay as soon as the water was taken away from his property, but not before. Same v. Ah Chung; Claim £1 12s 7d. Same v. J. Jones. Claim £2 3s 4d. Judgment for plaintiff m each case with costs. ' ' m ■* . • Brewery Company v. E. W. Perkins. Claim £7 10s: overdue calls ; case proved by Mr J. Godfrey, Mr Pirani appearing for the Brewery Company. Judgment for plaintiff and costs, counsel's fee 4>l j. Linton Vi- Baqcham and Batterbee. Claim £15 ss*; for commission on' sale of property. Mr J- H, Hankins (by Mr Atkinson) for the plaintiff, and -Mr G. F. Hawkins for defendants: • f Plaintiffs 'gave evidence to acting on bohalf of thedefendnnty m the sale of a certain property, aud on .account of having been assisted by "Uiis clients m the sale he had reduced his commission from 2£ to 1£ per-ceifti i .: ' Cross-examined: He never arranged with defendants that if ho did. not sell he was not to^tiafg'e. arty 'commission. Messrs Rutili^rford. L: G. West,' and F. MowlenVgave evidence m support of the claim. For the -def once A.'ißauckani swore that there v 'was" a pdsitiVe and distinct, underßtandteg'raade'betwpen Mr Linton and the defend ahts that if there was no sale effected' there was to be no charge; that the particulars of the property were put into the hands of a number of other agents at the" stupe time with same instructions, knd^alSo that whichever sold was to immediately' let the others know, m order to^pf event a second sale. Mr Sherwill, of Feildfng.'had taken persons , twice round" the property m a buggy and never- charged a cent, and Messrs B Smith & Co , of Wellington, advertised the property without any charge"; ih:re was a 'settle^ ment made with Mr Linton. the sale having been effected by the defendants, and the plaintiff' merely procuring the transfet'-of ascertain mortgage and solicitor's charges which were all made and paid to Mr J., H. Hankins by the purchaser, a Mr Green. Three days after the settlement the defendants received a letter from plaintiff stating that he had forgotten to deduct his commission. He waR tbunderstrnck. on reueiy-. iijg it as Mr^Jnton had absolutely done nothing m ttie'iaale. ' A. Batterby deposed that he had never ■een the pßEtntiff'ttbout the sale of the property untij it!had been sold by thede- . fendants, h» then saw him and* told him of it asking, that he would arrange the transfer, this was all that he had to do m the matter, -i*-- -'■■"' Mr Greeri, r who purchased tne pro p«rty, depos,e*d to paying Mr Hankins for the transfer and that the £50 deposit he fud was suggested to be handed over to Mr Linton by Mr Batterby. Both counsel having addressed the Bench judgment was given for plaintiff for part of the amount claimed. The Bench considered that thte plaintiff did * do something for defendants. He was a commission agent and was consulted by C defendants ih^hiff capacity as such. It ||w not confendefl that plaintiff had ■ effected a sale. 'He did perform certain S r services after the sale was effected. He v did all that a commission agent, could do : m order to complete the arrangements. ;■ The Bench were of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to commission .but was entitled to claim' for services rendered quantum ■'■' meruit. They considered that the sum of i>s 5s would be a sufficient remuneration. Judgment . Ijiven accordingly with costs 355, cou'nfee £1 Is, 'and witnesses' expenses, F. Mowlem and L. , G. West £1 Is •ach. t - . ■ ■•>•■;.•• N. A. Roos v. Manawatu Road Board. -^•Claim, £17^2s, for Jbalance of contract money, extra| alleged, to be owing by t!ie defcnddnt^board.'Mr ,G. F. Hawkins I for plaintiff, Mr Hankins {by Mr Atkin■on) for defendnnt board. Plamtift sxyorn, deposed 1 hat he en; tered into a contract with the-Manawahi Road Board and commenced the work m 1885. The contract money was' j-37 S''2s 6d; only received £29 12s 6d. Ue finished the' work a week before the con- '■■- tract time, which, lattejrwas^the r2Btb;" March, 1885, aCJhaffJamChad- -not J dories the extras. ll was then tlw|: he .cleaned. : out _Jhe drain. He was* -told l l\v • tTie ;i ■ engineer to do the work. He had- saiil to Mr Armstronaihat^li!| worji requf uejlj, was not m the spjeincation ; but ihe edid;' the work as he 'was told nq'dxhar^re^foi 1 it extra, digging ne.v/ drain making;'-' water-table. SsubseqiierAly he saw ** a ■j.: report, m the pjtpers-Und'' tn consequence [ went and looked at the work. He found s the board had employed Hsinsen' to make & holes m the that' it was not t. dean, as when he left it. He removed s » considerable amount of stuff from the side of the drain as extra work. |r After^coiwffSfeHle'evidence had been jjUfaEeV the Bench gave judgment for BUlaintiff for £7 10a with costs.