MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 October 1918, Page 51

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

j CIVIL BUSINESS. ; (Before Mr A. Crookc, S.M.) i At llio Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr A. Crookc, SjVI., judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following undefended cases:—Alice Sampson (ill-.!). Hutehcn) v. Rocra i'ouwharc.uiui, JX> 15s 4d (costs £2 «s Gd); E. (5. J'cfuvo (Mr A. C. Lowry) v.B.Sfgawhare, £2 7s lid (costs £l. 4s); same v. 15. Kalnii, £4 10s (costo 15s). ItESEIiVJiD JUDGMENT. In the case of A\ ilkes v. Ivibby, an action for £4O damages in respect to the purchase of a second-hand motor car, said to have been sold on warranty of its being in good running order, liis Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for Me sum of £ls, and costs. Tho Magistrate said lie was satisfied that, although, there was no warranty mentioned in the receipt given by defendant, the verbal warrant claimed by plaintiff to have ■been given by defendant had induced the plaintiff to purchase the car. 110 admitted there was difficulty in assessing tlho amount of damages, as the repairs bad all been included in one item on the bill. The only amount mentioned in the evidence was the cost of repairing ■the broken universal joint ( £G). Some other parts that were repaired were produced in court, and lio eould only form an estimate of the amount of repairs necessary to put tho car in running order. ALLT.GBD BREACH Off CONTRACT. 11. T, Coppen, plumber, claimed from Russell and Son, builders (Mr F. E. Wilson) the sum of £2O for alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff conducted his own case, and stated tliat the trouble was in connection with the Citizens' Band room. Tbe contract had been let to Russell and Son and witness understood that Mr Coleman, who was also member of the band committee, had charge of the subcontracts. He gave Mr Coleman a price, for the roof and plumbing and electrical work, the figure being £192 10s. He bad seen Mr Coleman several times in connection with tihe work and when lie asked when be would be able to start ho was told the place was not quite ■ready for Mm. Subsequently no was informed that Smart Bros were to do the roof work, and as they would not work on tho job with another plumbing contractor tbey would do all tbe plumbing work. Plaintiff received a letter to that effect from Russell and Son. Plaintiff tben went to see Coleman, whom bo met with Mr Russell, and asked for an explanation. Coleman said ho had written the letter at Russell's request. He then stated that an effort was made to induce Smart Bros to allow Mm to do part of tho work, but as that was refused he said be was entitled to some compensation. Russell had admitted Ihe was entitled to some consideration, and said be would see Mr Coleman and try to arrange matters. As plaintiff heard nothing further he wrote to Rnssell and Son stating that if a settlement was not reached within seven days legal proceedings would bo taken. Ho got no reply to his letter, and got a firm of solicitors to write also, but no reply was received'and .so action was taken;

In cross-esamination by str Wilson plaintiff aximitted that the ■price he gave to Mr Coleman was given before a contract for the building had been let.

Defendant said he earned on business as Rnssell and Son. He was the con- { tractor for the erection of the band room. ] Ho let some of the ivorlc by sub-con- i tract, that of Smart Bros, being accepted for the plumbing work, and written notice of that was given to them. Ho received no tender from Mr Coppen nor did ihe let any part of the work to Mr Coppen. He heard through Mr Coleman, the contractor for the woodwork, that Mr Coppen had put in a price for the plumbing, hut that was before the contract w let, and he believed the price was given to Mr Coleman as a member of the band committee, to %ive them an idea of what money would be required. He had heard afterwards that Coppen expected to do the plumbing work, and he liad endeavored tohave rectified what was evidently a misunderstanding between Mr Coleman and Mr Coppen. He tried to get part, of the work for Coppen, and failing that ho asked Smart Bros if they would take i from Mr Coppen any materials he had purchased with a view to doing the work. Smart .Bros agreed to take over front Coppen any materials he had purchased, at cost price, but Coppen de--dined to accept tho offer. Cross-examined by plaintiff, defendant

■■in id ho had had no dealings witfe plaini ill', and if plaintiff had made a contract with Mr Coleman that was no 'business' of defendant's. Ho thought, however, there had been a misunderstanding. Mr I<\ A. Coleman also gave evidence in which he stated he obtained t!ie price from Mr Coppen not for tho purposes of tho contract but so as to be in a position ta-ptct4<rfinite"ligures before-the band committee. He was not the contractor for the building and so had no power to sub-let ajiy part of the work. He was hnt acting as agent-for Mr. Rnssell whea he got Ooppan's estimate,, as the contract was mot let and it was not known v.-ho would be the builder. Tlie Magistrate, in giving judgment for defendant, said piainHff'iiad evidently been Tinder a uxiiapprehensf'W in the matter. To sanwaf he would havs- to- : tii'cvo that hoviadbecn a contTactemviifc Uusscll for the ptun&fcg \TOffc > -.>*3B!3a ho 'hnd''Eot 'iu:en"a.l)le to 40.