TEMUKA R.M. COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 187, 18 October 1879, Page 2

TEMUKA R.M. COURT.

Before F. Guinness, Esq., R;M.

Wednesday, Oct. 15. J. Rodick v, W. Marcroft—Claim, £29 15s 2d, for carting and for goods supplied. Plaintiff stated that he made a verbal agreement with the defendant to cart grain and to supply fencing materials for him. The defendant asked him to make out the accounts to Mr Somerville, tnd he did so ; bnt the defendant did not tell him, nor did plaintiff know that defendant was agent for Mr Somerville. Defendant had certified to one account as being i O'rect, and the amount was paid by Messrs Hanmer and Harper, of Christchurch.

Mr Austin said the plaintiff ought to bo nonsuited, aa he had made out the accounts to Mr Somerville, and it was only after he had been to his solicitor that ha thought of making Marcroft liable, Mr Jameson said the plaintiff did not know Mr Somerville, and that the credit was given to Mr Marcroft. His Worship decided to hear the evidence for the defence

W, Marcroft; I made an agreement with the plaintiff. I told him I was acting ns agent for Mr Somerville. By Mr Jameson : I have a lease of the. place for 14 years from Mr Somerville. By the Court: The materials supplied by the plaintiff were for the purpose of erecting a new fence, and not to repair an existing fence. Counsel having addressed the Bench.

His Worship said the only person who would reci.eve benefit from the erection of the fence was the defendant. The set off would not be allowed, and judgment would be given for plaintiff for amount claimed (less ss) and i osts.