MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 November 1921, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

WAITARA CASES. YESTERDAY’S SITTING. A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held at Waitara yesterday, Mr. A. M. Mowleni, S.M., presiding. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given as follows: Mary J. McKoy v. Alfred W. Williscroft, £4 14s, costs £1 12s 6d; Matthew Campbell v. Samuel McDonald, £5 Bs, costs £1 15s 6d; S. Whitehead v. Robert Erickson, £l4 18s Bd, costs £2 18s; H. Wells and Co. v. Charles Crowley, £2 14s 9d, costs £1 3s 6d; Hayhurst Motor Company v. George Kaipo, £8 3s 6d, costs £1 15s 6d; Otto Peterson v. Weki Kapo, £2 10s 2d, costs £2 3s Gd; William J. R. Avery v. Pahere, £lB 10s Id, costs £2 19s. At the suit of H. Wells and Co., Turu Hinemata was ordered to pay £ll 10s lid by an instalment of £5 on or before December 14, and the balance before January 14; in default twelve days’ imprisonment. Two informations for failing to send his children to school were brought against Leonard Tate. The attendance officer (Mr. G. Pascoe) said Tate had been warned by the magistrate for a similar offence last year. A fine of 10s, with costs 7s, was imposed in each of the twd charges. MAINTENANCE ORDER. Application was made by Mavis E. Hunt to secure compliance with an order against John Cook for the maintenance of his illegitimate child, the sum of £7 2s 6d being in arrears. Complainant said she was now married, but her husband could not afford to keep Cook’s child. Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for defendant, who applied to have the order cancelled, on the grounds that he was not in a position to pay. He had six children in his own family. After hearing the evidence His Worship remitted the arrears and reduced the order from 7s 6d to 5s per week. BUYING NEW SUITS. A claim for £44 16s, being the balance due in connection with a sale of was made by Emanuel Bergman, clothing manufacturer, of New Plymouth, against Ernest R. Batley, of Awakino. Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for plaintiff and Mr. H. R. Billing for defendant. Mr. Quilliam said that plaintiff traded in New Plymouth as the Taranaki Clothing Company, and defendant was a station manager at Awakino. Towards the end of last year an agent for Bergman visited the station for the purpose of getting orders for suits. Several orders were given, all of which were executed, and deposits were paid in respect of most of them. The orders came from the manager and several of the hands, Batley paying deposits for the suits and agreeing to pay the balance on delivery’; in fact, it was contended, he really gave an indemnity for payment for the suits to be delivered to the men. The suits were duly delivered, but with the exception of one suit, which was ordered by • a man named Thompson, no communica- ■ tion had been received from Batley,*and letters sent had failed to produce, any reply. In intimating that he intended to apply for an adjournment, Mr. Billing said Batley was unable to be present, on account of shearing operations. The defence was that Batley was not liable, being simply an agent ordering the suits; that the prinj cipals in the transaction were known, and | that there was no question of Batley asking Bergman to supply the suits, and undertaking to see that they were paid for. It would also be contended that the workmanship of the suits was faulty.

Mr. Quilliam objected to the adjournment, on the grounds that, all through the proceedings Batley had failed to put in an , appearance. The summons had been issued in June, and up till last week nothing whatever had been heard of what the defence was to be. Subsequently it was agreed between counsel and bench that judgment be entered for plaintiff for the claim, and fees and costs amounting to £8 17s. His Worship had pointed out that defendant s rights would be preserved by giving him the opportunity to appeal, and counsel for plaint iff agreed to raise no objection providing the application was made within three weeks. The judgment was made in these terms. A WOOD CUTTING CONTRACT. A re-fund of £6 ss, representing moneys paid in a wood-splitting contract, was sought by William 11. Hiscoke, the deI iendant being Arthur Gilliver. Mr. A. Bennett appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. F. E. Wilson for defendant. According to counsel, Hiscoke employed Gilliver Bros, on a contract to split 100 | cords of wood, which he had agreed to i supply to the Waitoitoi Dairy Company. The contract was not finished, but Gilliver Bros, were paid for 50 cords on the understanding that if the quantity of wood did not turn out to be correct when measured adjustments would be made according to whether they were overpaid or had not ' been paid enough. Counsel said the evii donee would show that the amount of ; wood measured had only come to 41 cords i altogether. Of this 38} cords were delivered to the factory, and the balance i was taken for private use. 1 James F. Phillips, chairman of the Waitoitoi Co-op.*Daiiy Co., gave particulars of the contract with Hiscoke, showing that according to the manager’s measurements | the quantity of wood delivered to the fac- | tory and paid for by the company was 38 i ; cords. At the suggestion of Hiscoke the company decided to make an advance before the wood was actually delivered. They advanced for 50 cords. To Mr. Wilson: They paid out on the assurance from Hiscoke that the quantity of wood had been cut. For the defence Mr. Wilson emphasised that the plaintiff’s own witness had stared that the advance payment from the dairy company was ✓made after Hiscoke had informed the directors that the quantity of wood cut was between 50 and 60 cords. Evidence was given by Arthur Gilliver to the effect that the first arrangement was that they were to be paid at the stump, but they had cut over thirty cords when they found there was no money forthcoming. They later learned thaj the factory directors were making an advance to pay for the splitting, and they received £37 10s, for vfrhich a receipt was given. When Hiscoke paid the cheque he did not, say that he would require a refund if the wood was short, as they all understood that the quantity was there. To Mr. Bennett: When Hiscoke discovered that the wood was short he approached witness for a refund; this was in February last. He did not suggest that the factory measurements of the wood ; were wrong, but that the wood went in olher directions.

The question as to how the parties came Io change the method of measurement at riie stump to factory measurement was raised by His Worship. Defendant, recalled, replied that they were informed that, they were to be paid for 50 cords, and as they knew this quantity of wood had already'* been cut it was a waste of time to continue stwluag the site*

In giving decision His Worship said the case appeared to be another sample of the trouble and inconvenience caused by the neglect to put down in black and white . what people really meant. It appeared ' that defendants agreed to take measurement at the factory. It was a very improvident contract, because it. was clear that they ran the risk of loss before the wood was delivered to the factory. Judgment would be given for the amount claimed, with co.sts £3 ss.