SUPREME COURT

Southland Times, Issue 18838, 3 June 1920, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

CIV!!. SITTINGS. (Before His Honour, Mr Justice Sim. > His Honour took his scat on ,“J bench at 10 a.m. yesterday. COMPENSATION CLAIM. In re Mary Ann Shave (Mr Bowler' v. Borough of (.lore (Mr Smith', claim £2OOO for alleged negligence ;n connection with the death of William Shave who, an employee of the defendant, met his death by drowning while engage*.! in his occupation on September 10, 1919. Mr Smith said that an agreement, had been reached, it hiving been arranged to pay the plaintiff ££oo inclusive of the £*>U(l payable under the Workers' Compensation Act and the sum of £2O 7s as funeral and medical expenses. Mr Bnvler staled thai the settlement had been reached apparently by the Mayor and the plaintiff or plaintiffs representative; counsel had known nothing about it. In view of the fa<-t that lie had not had tin opportunity "t di-eussing the question of arn'ortionment with the widow and two children, he risked thai the case should stand over. The ease was adjourned. COMMISSION CASE. Robert Atiken iMr Moore v. Neale and Mi I.co-i t M ■■ Ma.-aIU-tcr instructed by Mr Smith . chum £2U : 2- moneys alleged to be doc on cal' of land. Mr Moore, in stating the case, said that Ait ken wi:.- a farmer last year at Brookiniid., near 'htkeriHi. lb: had been ap-pr-'.ie!:eii by the defendant. Neale, to sell his firm m a Mr Wyliie. I lie sum mentioned being £9 per ut*’. Lhimately Wyihe offered ,‘.’S lb provide! :i number of ehattcls were in ■hiked. This was accepted by the plaintn'i subject to his making arrrangemem's won the defendants in regard In commission. Neale had agreed to accept £IOO and an agreement on these lines had been drawn up but, in.-iea iof deducting £ 10!) Neale had dedueti-d £_’lK) commission from the purchase money paid into his ofliee and he subsequently deducted £!-iii 2s on the sale of the stock although it was understood that the £IOO was to cover the whole sale. Cn examined by Mr Maeali.-ter, the plaintiff in the witness box stated that he had authorised Neale and McLeod to sell his farm in September. A man was shown over the property and asked £S 1-S per mere. 'I he property had subsequently been withdrawn from the market. Witness said he ha*! no recolUrtton of placing his property in Mr Neale’s hands in 19 It! for disposal at £0 ids per acre. He did not know that the Chamber of Commerce commission on the sal** would be £222. He had diseuw.; with Me I a-i m 1 the matter of a mistake in the calculation of the commission, but he could not remember what he had said. In opening the case for the defence, Mr Maeah.-ter -;;■*! that the commission on the sab- of I hr* land ,-honld be £2UU. the deieniiants staimg that a mist tkc had heeti made. They also staled that the plaintiff knew of tigs the day after the property had be m ,-oiil ami that he had declare.l that !;*' krnw of ir ..c tile lime of the agreement. Apart front thai. the defendants wan- justified in retaining separate e..minima n . n I in* sale of the stock. Although at the end of the agnsment it was stated that the stock was to be taken over at valuation, it wa.- imt intended that the commission on the .-ale should be lumped in the one sum. The defendants had plainin':".- property i n thear ham!.- -uuv 19It! It was after a in-euss.ien in Ulti in rega.rd to the sale of tiie farm that an ngr> einenr was drawn up. The question of stock then men' promdiug that the stork should be teimn over at, valuation. Hi- Honour; It was add ~| ..fter the .Mr Maeah-ter : V. e do n**t suggest that. Hi- Honour: Tlmn the whole agreement ISie dependant Neale stated that he could no; .-ay if tin* words referring to the stock were written in the agreement before nr after tile signature-' had been attached. I’o Mr Howler; When his firm sold land

:n• ■ sb-ck they charged commission <>n both. except when.- then? was a -peeini i agreement. The <■ ot:ir;ii'.■■-■io 11 to any of the tt ll- r--:!tilt- firms would have been !HdO and he diil nor consider that he had Wen com- ! pcn-ated fur the work done l>v the payment of iillK). Mortham McLeod, the other defendant, also gav<- evil Fnc:-. !!•■ said t !iat the plainT,ff called at the aimal'- office the day after th“ sale, when he .-fated that he knew at th-- time 'h it Neale had made a mistake. -John.-: i a-i Wylie, the porch i.-it of the farm., .-aid that it wa.- after he made the deal about the farm that he agreed to buy the -tack at valuation. 'I here wa.- no question ol commission raised until after the agreement had been drawn up, but not -igued. Atter h--aring I'-gal argument Ills Honour said that the defendants had deducted llkioi from a portion of the purchase money on th l ' around.- lha! a mistake had been made. 1? was char that a mistake had been made. A- th'- plaintiff was apparently not awar- n f ;he mistake at the time it did not appear that the defendants tv-re entitled t■ • toorh-n f 1 »t>. Pruna facie th-- defea i.mts v.-i-r,- entitled to commi-sion on tite - ill 1 of the -tuck. Hi- Honour did not think tit.'.! the aer.-'Mient referred to the -1 ■n; k. 1: was clear ti-en Neale could not iii'... pu; down anythin;: in connection with the commission on the -lock when the ; .'re- m ait wa- dra.tn up, bc-anse he woul-1 have h:ni no idea what it would bring. If Ai'ken 1- i 1 had lie- t ■•1 i> f th:.! tie' agreenicT.r rci--rr*-d the stock h-- should have he drew i* me 1' tv is clear that the practice wa,- for land :r. i-nt -" to charge cnminission for -i-liu.g -1.-, Ilm ; ■!. : i.: if r wa- cnI:r 1-■ 1 1 p i-■ “i ive l ; [r-d but the detVivients Hi- Honour -iaied that he would prole- •; Igmeu; att-r it had be«-n caleii! c f--l a- t-> le.tv t-.uch. on the (lore Chamber of r.-n-:r,.TCf -rale, tie- agents were cntitletl m tor die .-ale of the -lock. IN DIVORCE. Henrietta Chil 1.-s IMr Stout i petilinned for the dissolution of her marriage with Janie.-- I'hilde- on tie- ground of desertion. Tie ea; - wa- und-femled. The pi titloie-r, -• tiled, said that she was living v, ,td h-.-r husband a? I’etone iti l')l)2. Up to that turn- the re-pundent had drunk, and work-d only casually. IVtitioncr kept bo'irders at Pi-tine, -inetini.s having as many a.s 12 in tic- house. In February of ltd 12 respondent hud a. drain-aye contract, the mo■ ipv for whii-li If wa- -upposed to have left h--r, but .he found it ad drawn cxi-i-i.f li’i . Wo a-k-i-.l for an explanation on hi- r-turn Irma (he country, respondent im ; look' d erms. and that night, after geMimr th - v. or-e of drink, he struck her. Chddcs then left Th• ■ house, to return

and order all the rv-ru'-r- l'> leave, which tfvy all <iid ex-.-. ;>t .am Respondent again left', taking his bclongm".-* with him. Later her hu.-band ,-cnt a mcss-nif In witness ami gbe want In see bun. lie t.if 11 offered her e-j per w‘-eU to go and live in a cottage —- by hcr.-'af sF- thought. Witnr\< <l'ul not accent tin* nlTcf because her husband mid not kei I her since ah** was married ten month.-. ib-r husband agreed to take two of the.-on - to look after an ! had sen! them t’- fits mother. These sue later took hack. Since meeting her huslnind petitioner had kent her-i If by means of boarding houses and iiia.'iii':. Fhdin ! lawson, wlio had boarded with the petitioner in i’etone, gave corroborative evidence in regard to the trouble at retone, urn I Annie Forbes, sister of the petitioner, corroborated the la? ter.« statement that, she hail supported herself and children. A (U’crfi: nisi wus irnmted to be made absolute at tin- end of three months. Ilcspoiukni was on It red to pay costs on the lowest scale. A TREK FELLING CASE. Thomas McKellar and others (Mr W. Maculiater and Mr Hall) v. M iliia.m Guthrie end another (Mr Haggitt and Mr Stout). This w - as a claim for an injunction to restrain the defendants from cutting trees in

a right-of-way between Kelvin and North roads, being part of section 29, block 1, and for £250 damages for trees already cut. There was also a counter claim for an Injunction refusing permission to allow the trees in question to remain. The case was proceeding when the Court adjourned until this morning.