MAGISTRATES COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 153, 23 July 1901, Page 2

MAGISTRATES COURT.

9 i Mosday, 22ud July.—Before Mr. Stanford, S.M. JUDGMENT FOE PLAINTIFF. Auckland Clothing Company (Mr. T. S. Weston) v. Wm. Ross. Judgment by default: for amount claimed, £1- lis 6d, and lis costs, JUDGMENT SUMMONS. The Oradurmtn 6 D. Company v. W. Gamer, claim £lB Ob 6d fer calls on wharfs. Mr. Quiiliam (Govett and Quilliam, * structed by Metsrs. Ohapman and Tripp, Wellington) appeared for tbe plaintiff Company, and judgment debtor appeared in person. In examination he said he was a factory manager, and was unable to make any oftor in satisfaction of the claim. He had been paying away a good portion < f his salary for the past twelve months to discharge another debt. An arrangement to th's effect was entered into in April 1900, and tbe judgment in the prtssnt instance was obtained in Ftbruaiy, 1901. In reply to Mr. Quilliam debtor said he hid had a meeting of his creditor?, who were willing to take over the shares and pay up the cslln, but he understood they had teen declared forfeited. His present salary was £3 per week out of which £2 was ptid away as sta'ed. Tbe Magistrate said that under the circumstances he could nob make any order.

CATTLE DEALING OASIS. J. H, Street v. F. McJannett, claim £3 for a bull sold by p'aintiff to defendant. Mr. Weston appeared for Street, and Mr. Hu chen for the defendant. The evidence of 8. W. Shaw, auctioneer, called for the defence, was taken first, as he had to get away, He a, ated he remembered a sale at Mr. Foote's near Bell Block, in April last, when he sold a bull—a dark-coloured Jersey bull —which was boufjht by Mr Chas. Oolnon for 255. He did not see Street about when the bidding west on ; though there was competition for the animal. It was very cheap at the price. J. H. Street, farmer, at Bell Block, nd plaintiff in the action, stated he saw defendant the moroing before | Foote's sale. McJannett and th«re I whs a bull there (at Foote's) for which he wouli not mind 'giving £3 or £4, but be was »ot going to tbe He did not give plaintiff auy authority to buy. Plain'iff went to 'he stle, but. was not present at tbe bidding for tbe hull, which was bought by Mr. Co'son. While going home, af f er the tale, with Oolson, witness bought tbe bull fiom him for £2 10s. Next morning he s>w McJannett. who s*id, " Did ycu buy that bull for me?" Witoen replied that he did not; but that he would let him have the bull for £3. McJanoe't agreed to tltic, and took delivery, plninMlfringms" the anim»lfor him on the following Sunday. Afterwards, wben plaintiff gp 'ke to defendant abou r payment, tbe latter ea'd he (S:reet) Had bought for h'"m as his agent, «nd that he would only give the sale pricj. They had some words over the matter, and phintiff took proceedings. Chas. Col'oi, farmer on the E?moot road, Slid he was present at Mr Foote's s&le, and bought a bull f»r 255, which be sold te Street that night for £2 10s. Tbe animal was very cheap, even at £3, and witness would be willing to give £5 for it to-day. Sam Richards, farmer on the Hen-wood-road, said McJannett had told him, wh*n speaking of the purchase of the bull, that he did nol give Street any deficits instructions to parobase for him. It was worth £6

D. Bishop, settler at Bill Block, gave similar evidence. This was plaintiff s cas\ The defendant, M. P. MrJannett, s»id lie told S'reet on the miming hefor* the s-ile that there was a buU ; t Peote'n for which he would willingly give £3 or £4, though he did not instruct Street to buy it for bim. In the evening he heard it had been sold fo" £1 15s. Next morning he saw Street and said "did you buy tha"; bull for me ?" Street replied that he did, and that he wanted £3 for it. Defendant said he thought it was knocked down for £1 15., but if he (Street) hud bought it for him, he thought himself (defendant) in honour bound to take it,'evsnfat the £3. When the bu'l was delivered, defendant found it was nnt the one he wanted to get. This one was of no use to him, but be kept pjs session of it pending the decision on matter. There ma no mention of Oolsoa in the dealings between them. i

The Magistrate said the evidence was in favour of plaintiff, and judgment would go for the amount claimed, less £1 15s paid into Court-, and for costs which amouotel to £8 12s. The Magistrate said it was a pity the rase had been brought before the Oourt at all. M'GILL V. JULIAN. This was u cas? in whi'h AFce M. MoQill sought to recover £25, balance due on the g ''e of goods to Tho?, Juli&n at W»m, Mr R.C. Hushe* appwd for the plaintiff, and Mr T. S. Weston for defendant.

The nvidencs of plaintiff anil hor husband 'aken iu Auck'aod was read, and vf'er heating argument of counte', tho Bench gava judgment for the defondant, with costs amounting to i 4 ICs3d. • : —-r~ I