RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5434, 27 August 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, August 26. (Before T. A. Mausford, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Three person's charged with drunkenness were dealt with in the usual manner. LARCENY. Alfred 'William Thompson was brought up on remand, charged with stealing, on or about Easter Monday last, three silver watches, three gold albert chains, a gold locket, and a seal, the whole of the aggregate value of £ls, the property of Thomas Walker. Prosecutor deposed that he was a general dealer residing in Tarauaki-street. Prisoner came to his place on Easter Monday, when the watches were in the house, and witness’s wife had occasion to go out, when she left the watches tied up in a handkerchief before she went away. Witness followed shortly afterwards, 'and when he returned with her the house was locked and they could not get in. Witness had been drinking at the time. His wife subsequently found the door-key. After entering the house they found that the watches were missing. Henry Comon, - a seaman belonging to the steamer Taranaki, deposed that he saw the prisoner on board that vessel about six or seven weeks ago. Prisoner then had the watch now produced in his pocket. Witness purchased it from him for £2 10s. At this stage of the proceedings the case was remanded until next day for the production of the prosecutor’s wife as a witness. CIVIL CASES. The civil cases on the list were disposed of as follows : Mclntyre v. McFarlaue —This was a claim to recover £62 10s. for commission. The case was heard on the 19th iust., when his Worship reserved judgment, which he now delivered aa follows : —ln this case the plaintiff seeks to recover, from the defendant the sum ot £62 10s., being til*! amount of commission at 2-J per cent, on £2500 for the sale of the Victoiia I Hotel to Wm. Thorbury. From the evidence it appears that the plaintiff was instrumental in negotiating and concluding the sale, and that bought aud sold notes were exchanged between the defendant aud Thorbury, the price being fixed at £2500, of which £SOO was to be paid in cash, the balance on approved bills, and the stock to be taken at valuation. The £SOO cash was not paid in accordance with the terms of agreement; but a deposit of £IOO was paid by thorbury aud accepted by defendant, who stills holds the same. The valuation of the stock was taken, aud a temporary transfer of the license to Tlioi bury applied for aud obtained. The defence set up was that Thorbury having failed to complete the negotiation by paying the balance of the £SOO and giving approved bills for the remainder of the purchase money, the plaintiff is not entitled to his commission. I am of opinion that the nlaintiff is entitled to recover. In the case of Horford v. Wilson, I Taunton, 15, the defendant promised to pay plaintiff £5 if he would provide a tenant for certain premises, and get him £350 for his lease. The plaintiff procured one Smith, with whom the defendant entered into an agreement and received £SO as a deposit. Smith being unable to complete his engagement the defendant released Kim, but retained the £SO. The Court held that this was a substantial performance of the condition on the part of the plaintiff, aud that he was therefore entitled to recover the £5 from the defendant. And in the later case of Lockwood y. Levick, 8 Com, Bench, New Series, it was held that the commission was earned as soon as a valid bargain of purchase aud sale had been made, whether the contract was or was not ultimately carried into effect, and whether it turned out to be a bad bargain productive of loss or an advantageous transaction. I thofore give judgment for the plaintiff for £62 10s. aud costs, £6 12s. John Sinclair v. Flora Peterson—claim £ls, the value of a dog. Plaintiff stated that the dog was only six months old. He had made application to the defendant for the dog, but she refused to give up possessionof the animal His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for 20s. aud costs, to be reduced to Is. if the dog were returned. J. and R. Sloan v. - John Jacobs—This was a judgment summons case for £l9 3s. 3d., forgoods sold and delivered. His Worship made an order for the defendant to pay £lO by the 26th of next month, and the balance four weeks later. Judgments were given for plaintiffs, with costs, in the following cases :—R. Burrett v, C. S. Burns—claim £3 3s. for goods. Same v. J. C.|Beetham —£9 125., goods. J, H. Parker v. IV. Bishop—£3 35., work and labor done. Hyams and Co. v. Geo. Smart—£ll 4s. 6d., goods. '