MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVII, Issue 66, 17 July 1915, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

YESTERDAY’S SITTING, His Worship, W. C. Kenrick Esq.. S.JI., presided at the sitting, ol th* Court at Stratford yesterday. non-attendance at camp. Defence Department v. Howard Souzens. —Q.M.S. Creagh, prosecuting, stated the Department had issued a circular to all territorials concerning arrangements for attendance ‘at camp. A man would be exempted from the first camp on the condition that he attended the second camp. Defendant had attended neither. De- [ ftndaut had not been convicted liefore,. and his previous attendance had [ been good. Defendant said that he was unable to pet to the first camp on account of having to leave cows. He could not go to the second one because he had arranged his marriage lor the time of the second camp.

The Magistrate said that defendant should have applied for an exemption. He would take into consideration defendant’s previous good attendance and impose a fine of £2 with <s costs.

Defence Department v. A. A. Wall. The prosecution stated that defendant had been previously convicted and fined in 1914. He had attended no parades. Defendant who did not appear, was fined £3 and costs <s. Default was fixed at 14 days’ military detention. . COMMISSION CASE. James Donald (Mr Macalister) v. W. A. O’Callaghan (Mr R. Spence).— Mr Macalister, in opening, stated that in 191-1 the defendant came to Stratford and asked plaintiff if he. would act as his sub-agent for the }j liick car. Plaintiff agreed. Shortly after this plaintiff notified defendant that a man named Christianson wanted a trial of a Bnick. O’Callaghan came up and gave Christianson a trial that afternoon with one of plaintiff’s employees. On returning from the trial O’Callaghan asked Christianson to pay his deposit to Donald. The next day Christianson required a further trial, and Donald notified O’Callaghan, who wrote to Christianson and also to Donald enclosing a copy of the letter lie sent to Christianson. When asked to pay a deposit. Christianson said said that he would have to sell his Cord first, and instructed Donald with others to sell it. Later Donald saw Christianson in a Buick. Jn March, 1910, he found out that the car had been obtained through O’Callaghan by Mr Leslie Curtis. Counsel held that Donald was entitled to commission on all Buick cars sold in Gtnt'oid as it was his exclusive district. James Donald corroborated Mr Macalister’s statement, and added that Christianson informed him that Curtis was trying to get a Buick car from America fcJr him as he had sold the Ford. Therefore lie did nothing in the matter, as he was sure Curtis could get the car, and it was no use pushing the deal with O’Callaghan. When he got the letter cancelling the agency, he interviewed O’Callaghan, who refused to pay the commission as witness had not sold the Ford.

To Mr Spence: He would swear that he relied on O’Callaghan’s offer to pay commission at 10 per cent. The Ford was sold in Juno 1914, and the Hoick delivered in December, 1914. When he did not know that Christianson had a Buick lie presumed that lie got it from America, and therefore made no claim for commission.

To Afr Macalister: He did not think that O’Callaghan had received any commission, as ho (witness) thought Curtis got the car from America,

M. W. Christianson corroborated the evidence and statement concerning the trial given by O’Callaghan. Ail he knew of where the car came was that he understood it came from America direct to Curtis.

To Mr Spence: He did not bind himself to buy the car Irom anyone. He was under no obligations to buy from Curtis.

Asked by Mr Spence why he did not go to Donald, witness did not reply.

Mr Spence in defence held that Donald was not the cause of the sale. Curtis was the real pivot in the whole thing. To succeed, a man must be not only the causa sine qua non, but also the causa causandi. He quoted Halsbury, Vol. 1, folio 1914, in support of his argument. William Arthur O’Callaghan gave corroborative evidence of the appoint-

.merit of Donald and of tlie negotiations between Donald, Christianson,

ami himself, which came to nothing. At the A. and P. Show at Hawera, Mr Curtis told him he could sell a Hoick, and asked for commission. Witness allowed 10 per cent. Later Curtis notilied him that lit 1 had sold the car and asked for delivery. Curtis got

delivery in Wellington, and handed the car over at Stratford. Witness received Curtis’ cheque less commission for Lho sale. Ihe first he knew that it was Christianson was when he saw Christianson, who asked him to

sell the 1011 ear and g(i a 1915 one for him. When he sold the car to Curtis, he did not know who it was for, and did not take any trouble to find out. All he bothered about was obtaining the price of the ear. The Magistrate held that if Donald’s agency, was an exclusive one, lie must recover, but there was no evidence to prove that it was. Plaintiff then had to bring about, a sale to win commission, hut he .had not done >so.

Curtis brought the sale about, and

h<> was entitled to commission. When .Donald tried to bring about the sale,

nethnig happened. Defendant did not know who was the purchaser ol the car, and was not liable to pay commission to Donald. On these grounds, plaintiff must fail . j Counsels’ fee £2 2s, and defendant’s expenses los were allowed.