MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2153, 13 February 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAEU-THIS DAY. [Before E. Boetlram, Esq., E.M.] I.UNAOV KKIiM 1)1!INK. A charged with lunacy from drink was discharged. A (JUAI!KKbSOMK NKHIIIIJOUII. Jus. Euhinson summoned 11. Burns fur assault. das. Robinson, residing - next dour to the accused, stated that Burns eamo homo about six o’clock one day last week and used abusive language to witness’ wife, and also threatened to poison his little girl. Witness did not hear accused say all this himself. His Worship desired witness to call someone who had heard the abusive language, Ac. Annie Burns deposed to the accused boxing her infant daughter’s oars, and using abusive language to her, and also threatening to strike her. Accused denied that he had struck woman or child. The wife of accused deposed to her husband having been “on the beer” for two or three days before this atfair. When he returned home the plaintiff’s wife commenced the disturbance by “tongueing” the accused. Accused was lined 10s and costs. DRUNK AXD DISnRDKRI.V. Charles Simmonds was charged with being drunk and with resisting the police. Accused was fined 20s for the first offence; the second charge was dismissed. civift CASKS. Gibson v. Crown Brewery Company, claim £5. Mr Hamcrsley for plaintiff and Mr White for defendants. This was a claim for the recovery of the price of a hogshead of beer obtained by the plaintiff from the Company,with whom he had been dealing, and subsequently returned to them. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, Judgment went by default with costs, in the eases Hill v. Mulligan, claim £fi Gs 3d; and Allpress and Son v. Tapp, claim £2 10s. Thompson v. Murchison—Claim TBu

Mr Hamersley appeared for plaintiff, Mr White appeared on behalf of defendant.

This was a claim for the recovery of commission on certain land.

John Thompson stated that he was in partnership with Mr Barnett as commission agents in 1H77. Mr Murchison had some land for sale, which was afterwards sold to Mr McKay. It was sold at £4 lOs per acre. Mr McKay came into the office to inquire about the price of the land, and witness saw him. Ho would not give quite the amount they were authorised to sell for, and they advised them to sec their principal. They afterwards wrote to Mr Murchison informing him about the offer they had had for the land. Sometime afterwards the firm received a letter from Mr Murchison intimating that he had seen Mr McKay re land. He also then withdrew the land from the books of the firm, adding that he would wait for better times. The firm afterwards heard that Murchison had sold the land to McKay at £4 10s per acre. The firm thereupon sent in their account for commission in the ordinary course of business. This account had never been paid. By Mr White: The firm charged 24 per cent all round on the transaction. Witness received a telegram from Murchison on June 2G, “ Close with offer for land at £4 per acre, if more not procurable.” Witness originally selected the land for Murchison, who, about 12 months afterwards, desired witness to sell the land at £4 os per acre. Witness made an entry, ami Mr Murchison placed the land in witness’s hands for sale at £4 os per acre. A Mr Mowett afterwards offered to purchase the land at £4 per acre. The offer was refused. Mr .Murchison then fenced in the land, and, witness believed, afterwards let it. Mr Murchison subsequently placed the land, fenced in as it then was, in the firm’s hands to sell at £4 11s 3d per acre, all round. Land had increased in value by this time.

The defendant being then examined by Mr White denied that he had employed Messrs Thompson and Barnett to negotiate the transaction for the sale of the land to McKay and witness had himself sold the laud to Mr McKay, without any one’s assistance. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £'49.