RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1370, 18 October 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth Esq., R.M.) Tuesday. Hickey v. Crobbie. Mr H. E Kenny appeared for the defence, and Mr Finn for the plaintiff. The particulars of this claim appeared in a previous issue. His Worship uow gave judgment on a point of law, raised by Mr Keuny, as to whether that Court had jurisdiction in the case. He said, upon mature consideration, he found that as the promissory note was drawn and made payable in Ashburton he was reluctantly compelled to non-suit the plaintiff. He was very sorry as the plaintiff was a working man suing for his wages. Under the peculiar circums a "ices he should not allow any cost! in the case. Dufaur v. Murrey Mr Nolan appeared for the plaintiff and Mr McDougal for the defendant. In opening the case Mr Nolan stated that the claim was for £33 17s commission on the sale of the Settlers Hotel. Mr Dufaur was an agent, and amongst other things conducted the sale of houses, hotels, &c. In this instance the defendant placed his hotel in Mr Dufaur’s hands with the distinct understanding that he was to receive 5 per cent commission on the amount realised.

Mr F. Dufaur : In the early part of last May he saw Mr Murrey and told him he thought he could find a customer for his hotel. Mr Murrey named a lump sum of £7OO. He told Murrey the best way was to state the amount he wanted for the goodwill and the remainder to go at a valuation. Murrey gave him a written authority to sell. Some time afterwards Mr Murrey culled and asked what progress he had made with the sale, and was informed that nothing definite had been arranged. Mr

Murrey then cancelled the comtnieson to sell. Mr Beresford having called on him (Dufaur) several times, he weut and asked Murrey to state a definite price for the goodwill, and to let the rest go at a valuation, as people would not buy a “pig in a poke.” Mr Murrey then named £250 as the price of the goodwill, and the rest at valuation, which came to nearly the same thing and authorised him to sell to Beresford or anyone else upon those terms. He saw Beresfoid and Mr Aislabie who said they would find the money. The agreement of sale was made out aud sigued in his (Dufaur’s) office. He was acting as Murrey’s agent in the matter.

By Mr McDougall i Mr Murrey said he had seen Bedford, It was after the cancelling of the commission order t at Mr Murrey agreed to take for the goodwill and the rest at valuation, He did that at his (Dufaur’*) suggestion, as he told Inm it would come to near the same thing as the price stood at £670 by this arrangement. Remembered Mr Doleman coming to him on the day of signing. Doleman also came a few days before and said he wanted to buy the hotel, but ho (Dufaur) told Doleman that it had gone beyond hisxontrol, and that Beresford was to have it, provided he could find the money. Did not tell Do.emxn that he must go to Murrey. If Mr Murrey said he had made t e arrangement with Beresford it wa« entirely fulse. Re-examined by Mr Nolan j Was acting all through as Murrey s agent, and reeeivef the purchase money and paid it over f 0 Murrey.

Mr J. H. Aislabie : Remembered going to Mr Murrey and asking about terms, as he wished Beresford to get it. Murrey informed him that he wished to leave on account of had health. Made no arrangement with Murrey. Was present when the money was paid by Mr Matthewson, who handed the cheque to Mr Dufaur, and Dufaur paid it over to Murrey. Understood Dufaur to be acting as Murrey’s agent. By Mr McDougal : Could not swear that Murrey was present when the money was paid.

Mr Matthewson: Mr Murrey was not present when he paid «he cheque to Dufaur. He understood that Dufaur was Murrey’s agent. Mr Beresford: Took possession of the Settlers Hotel on the Ist of July last. Dealt with Dufaur as Murrey’s agent. Was present when the money was paid. Mr Matthewson paid the money to Dufaur and Dufaur handed it to Mr Murrey. He first spoke to Murrey about taking the Settlers some time previously when Murrey promised to give him the first offer. He also telegraphed to Murrey about the house. Murrey afterwurdi told him Dufaur had the selling of it. He subsequently told me that he had cancelled the agency with Dufaur, Mr Dufaur afterwards told him that Murrey had recommissioned him to sell. Again went to Murrey, who told him he was in communication with several otlvr parties. Did not remember whether Mr Doleman’s name was mentioned. Mr Murrey was not present when the money was pain to Dufaur By the Bench : There was nothing said about the money between him and Murrey. Got that information from Dufaur. Did not remember telling Murrey that he would give £225 for the goodwill. Mr F. Murrey: Had negotiated with Beresford long before employing Dufaur. In the first place had commissioned Dufaur to sell. Informed Dufaur that Beresford was a likely buyer. Eventually withdrew ihe agency from Dufaur. Mr Dufaur did not effect the sale. Dufaur called and informed him that Beresford could find the money. Did not re-engage Dufaur as agent. Beresford came and made an offer when he was told that Dolman was negotiating for the house. Beresford said he was ready to put the cash down on the nail. Told him he

could hava an answer on Saturday. Baw him again on the Saturday but did not agree to sell. On tne last occasion he came up again, and agreed to pay the price, and asked him to go to Dufaur’s office where they signed the agreement of sale. Keeeived the cheque from Dufaur. Never authorised Dufaur to receive the money or re-engaged him after cancelling the written agency. Mr S. Dolman : Went to Mr Murrey at first. Heard'that Dufaur had the lease, and called at his office to ees it. Dufaur said he must go to Murrey. Dufaur tnlj him he had nothing to do with the hotel, and that he must go to Murrey, Mr McDougall having addressed the Court, His Worship gave judgment for the amount and costs. Babbie v. Bbowx.

Claim, £7 14s 3d. Judgment to pay £3 down, and the remainder at £ I per month.

Lewis v. Paobi Havah, Judgment summons, for £l3. Mr Woon having given evidence that he had to pay the defendant rent next March, an order was made for the amount to be paid in four months, in default 14 days imprisonment. Katarina Kahutia v. Allah McDonald. M.H.K. Mr Sievewright for the plaintiff, Mid Mr H. E. Kenny for the defnnUnt. This was a claim for £lOO annuity in con. nection with the notorious case, some of tho details of which we exposed in last Satur. day’s issue. His Worship said he thought it advisable to let this case stand over until the enquiry, which was going on in another Court; had been terminated. He would aojourn it until Friday week, the 26th, and further if necessary. Larceny. Horomoana was brought up, charged on the information of Paori King!, with the larceny of a horse. Mr McDougall appeared for the prosecution and Mr Kenny for the defence. Paori Kiugi remembered coming to an agreement with the defendant in February last about a horse. The horse was given to him in satisfaction of a claim he had on the defendant amounting to £34 for grass seed. This £34 had been paid by Mr Graham to the defendant for disbursement to witness and 16 other natives, but instead of doing so he spent the money. The defendant then agreed to give him the horse in satisfaction. He took the horse and put it in a paddock where it remained until September, when some one took it away. He subsequently found that the defendant had the horse, and when asked for it defendant refused to give it up. In cross-examination witness stated that the horse had been given to the claimants in the £34. About £4 had been paid. Only six natives, who were present at the time the arrangement was made, bad any share in the animal.

His Worship nonsuited the plaintiff. Clabke v. U.S.S. Company. Mr Whitcombe applied for leave to enter up judgment against the defendants in the above case as he had heard nothing further from them. Leave given to enter up judgment.