RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5656, 16 May 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, May 15. - ■ (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) . ' ■ DRUNKENNESS. Four inebriates were dealt with in the usual way for being .drunk and disorderly in the public streets. , .. " ' VAGRANCY. . ' Bella Garrison and. Miiry Garrison, two sisters, were charged,with vagrancy. : The police stated they were wandering, about the streets.: His Worship said be had betoro given his opi-‘ nion in regard to unfortunate women like the ■prisoners. Unless it could be shown that;they had broken the law, he should discharge them. Both prisoners were then discharged.; LARCENY. '

Ambrose Simpson was charged on remand with having stolen certain pieces of cloth, &6., valued at £4 Bs. 3d., the property ef F. Simeon, tailor, in whose employment he had been. Prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, wasdefended by Mr. Gordon Allah. * ; ‘ : ! '

Complainant stated the, prisoner‘was in his employ. The'articles produced belonged to him (witness). Prisoner was sent to prison for four weeks.

DONALDSON V. BOWDEN.. His Worship delivered judgment in this case as follows : ' ‘ ■' This is a claim of £IOO for commission upon the sale of defendant’s business as a bookseller, (fee., to Messrs. Clark and Price, raid the only question to be determined is whether the plaintiff was authorised to act as defendant's agent in the matter. From the documentary evidence it would' appear that the plaintiff, seeing an advertisement that a first-class book and stationery business was for sale on easy terms, replied to the address in the advertisement that he was acting for a gentleman with considerable means, who wished to purchase on easy terms a bookseller’s business, and that should the advertiser communicate with or call uiwn him' he would be prepared to discuss matters and give the address of his principal. The advertiser, not disclosing his name, replied by letter, giving, particulars of the business and the terms upon which he was prepared to sell, and adding that if the plaintiff’s friend was prepared to comply with those terms that ' a meeting could be arranged. A second letter was written by the plaintiff to the defendant under his disguised name, that be had written to his principal, enclosing defendant’s letter, with the particulars, and that it'was probable he would come up. The principal did come up from Timaru, and his introduction to the defendant by the-plaintiff took place immediately afterwards, the defendant’s proper name not having-been ascertained till an interview- was sought after the arrival of the subsequent purchaser in Wellington. The result of’the introduction was 1 the sale of the business upon terms which were declared to be more advantageous to the defendant than those offered by him in the. first instance.. Before the arrangement was completed between the defendant and the purchaser the plaintiff met the defendant and said to him, ‘'Remember I look to you for my commission-os soon as the sale is:made.” To which, according to the plaintiff, the defendant replied, “ Time enough for that after the arrangement is'made,” the defendant admitting that, the plaintiff said he would look to him for ; commission, but that his reply, was, “What is the use of talking to me now till we-have come to a definite settlement.”: The defendant admitted that the sale took place through the agency of the plaintiff. Evidence was also given that it was the custom for the* vendor to pay the broker’s commission if die (the broker) introduced two principals ahdthe sale resulted from the introduction. In the present case the defendant furnished the particulars to the plaintiff, knowing that he was not a principal, and if he desired •the plaintiff to understand • that 1 he was not authorised to act as his agent, and 'that he would not pay him any commission, he should have said so at the time. lam of opinion that under the circumstances detailed'an agency is not only implied, but 1 that the defendant recognised it when, in reply to the plaintiff saying he should look to him for commission, he said it was no use talking about that till they' (meaning himseif and the purchaser) had effected a settlement. 1 - I think'the plaintiff is entitled to his commission, and as his claim has been reduced below the l usual rate to bring the case 'within ithe jurisdiction of the Court, I give judgment for the amount claimed, £IOO, with costs. ': JACKSON V. MACDONALD, i In this case the plaintiff . sought to recover from the defendant a certain document, or £3O in lieu thereof. ’His Worship delivered judg- 1 rnent to-day as follows :—To maintain this action it is necessary- to prove the right of property in, and the right to the possession of, the document in question, and further that the document is in the possession or under the control of the defendant, that a demand has been made for the possession, that the defendant refuses to deliver, and then the value.- Krom the entry in the plaintiff’s diary on the 12th April last year, I am bound to conclude'that the document in question-was handed to the defendant by the plaintiff—how long it remained in his possession,- or in what way he parted with the possession, it is impossible to say. It appears to have been given to him to enable him to extract particulars for an adverraent, and may have been given to Roxburgh, who was interested in the property, and who says, with some confidence, that he sent it to Invercargill irb-the'following month for the purpose of obtaining a '.loan. The defendant does not deny having had posses-ion of the document, but there are several ways in which he may- have parted with it. Roxburgh states that the valuation was made by Beere for him, that it was his sole-property, that he paid for it,-and that he has never given up his right to it, and that wherever it may be at-the present moment he claims 'the right of property in it. In the face of this evidence; and the positive assertion by the defendant, that he has hot the. document in his possession, l and that he does not know where it is, I am not prepared to say that the plaintiff has proved the necessary requisites to entitle him to a judgment in his favor. ; I therefore nonsuit the plaintiff, with costs. ; : WATSON V.'MONTBTTH. . .This- was an adjourned case,' and was an action- 'tool recover £BO as damages for am alleged improper treatment. The facts of the 1 Case 'have' already been published. Several fresh witnesses were examined, who gave somewhat 1 contradictory evidence. His Worship reserved judgmen't.JUDOMBSTS 'BOB PLAINTIFFS. In the following cases judgment was given for'plaintiffs, with costs : —Titanic Iron Co: v. M. Cox, claim £10;; same v. Ball, claim £lO ; same v. Carver, claim £lO ; same’ v. Proctor, claim £22 10a,; ’same v. Watson, claim £SO ; Bannatyne v. J. T.’Anderson, claim £6l 75.; Eddie and Jack v. W. Smith, claim 17s. 6d.; J. Nathan and CobvJ Williams, claim £7 Bs. 9d.; Lancaster v. Mason, claim £8 11s.