RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4921, 17 October 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M.) CIVIL SIDE. Judgments tor Plaintiffs.

Brown v. Waite.—£l 13,! Bd, balance of account; costs 7s.

Stone v. T. W. Hickson.—£6 7s, for goods supplied ; costs, 21s 6d. • Te Aroha Quartz Crushing Go. v. Searancke.—Claim £2 10s for calls.' —Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hay, Hamilton, for the defendant. —H. E. Whitaker, manager of the company, deposed that defendant was a shareholder in the Company, and owed the amount sued for for calls on shares he d by him. —For tbe defendant it was contended that proper publication ac ording to the Acfc had not been made, as the call was not notified in a newspaper puplished in the provincial district in which the company carried on its operations.—Mr Miller argued that this provision was removed by the .Amendment Act of 1883, and the Bench agreed with this view of the case. —Mr Whitaker, cross examined by Mr Hay, deposed that the call sued for was not made in the registered office of the company ; a meeting of directors was held at Morrinsville to suit the convenience of directors; he had not sent notices calling the meeting, as he had authorised Mr Craig to do so for him.—The Bench held fhat there was no evidence to show that the call had been made, the production of what purported to be the minutes was not prima facie evidence of it having been made; the manager was not present at the meeting. This was fatal to the case, and the plaintiff would be non-suited, with costs, £6 Is.

The cases of the same company against Knox, Hume, Gauden, McLennon, Kirk* wood, Edgecome, and Steele, were similar cases, and were withdrawn, 13s 6d being allowed as costs in. each case.

Heathcote v. The Queen. —Claim £75. Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hudson Williamson, Auckland, for the Government —The case arose out of a contract undertaken by plaintiff in can-* nection with the removal of the Court House, Te Aroha-—Mr Beere, the Distiiet Engineer, itappeared, had instructed plaintiff to alter the work originally agreed upyn, and eventually stopped he altogether; the defendant had placed material on the ground to enable him to execute the work, had lost time over it, and sought to recover their value. The plaintiff deposed that he agreed with Mr Hanna, Government Inspector, to remove the lock-up and Court House, Te Aroha, he had removed the lock* up when he wrote to Mr Eeere suggest-* ing alterations" to the work, and Mr Beere some time afterwards replied that ilia plaintiff should not interfere at all with the building until he received further isstruclions ; the works was subsequently stopped altogether. He claimed the amount of the action on account of deterioration in value of articles brought for (he contract, and for time lost in connection with the contract being stopped. —To Mr Williamson: He certainly accepted the contract to remove tbje building, and tho reason he did not start for a month was because he waa waiting for Mr Beere's answer to his counter proposal.— Mr Williamson contended that as plaintiff had nob written to Mr Beere plainly accepting the contract no binding agree* ment had been entered info. He quoted several authorities in support of his con* tin, and argued that although plaintiff had some claim for compensation, the Court was not the proper place for him to have c^me to • recover."™" Mr Miller argued that there had been a contract between the two parties; he submitted that the law did not require an acceptance in writing; an acceptance in. feet (as was the case by the plaintiff in the present action starting work) constituted a legal contract.—His Worship held that as plaintiff had started work on, the contract immediately on receiving Mr Bsere's offer, making at the sama time a suggestion for some improvement, that constituted an acceptance, and the case would have to be taken on its merits. (Plaintiff was then cross-examined by Mr Williamson as to the details of the claim made, several of the items being shown to be excessive.) — James Hanna, overseer of the work, deposed that the material on the ground was partly new stuff, and in. p^rt old material remaining from a previous contract. Kauri timber was generally delivered- at Te Aroha in the roii£h at 16s 6i per IGDft, and for planed 2s more. Judgment was given for £30, the amount claimed by the plaintiff when he first wrote to the Engineer complaining of his aotion in the matter; and costs £8143. ; / ■ . Judgment Summons. Fobgie v. Fla.te.~- £5 83. The defendant wrote from Te Aroha saying that as the plantiff did not pay his expenses he was unable to attend. Owing to insufficient service, the case was struck out, the plaintiff electing to issue a fresh summons.

An editor up north ia Victoria &a3 started walking on unfrequented roads towards Melbourne, notwithstanding he has a free railroad pass. This is how it occurred. His paper gare an account of a society event and in speaking of old beautiful lady of rather large proportion?, he wrofe, "Mrs . possesses an elegant form that a Juno might renvr." The editor went home and left his assistant (o Ke* °uj the paper and the next morning he read. Mrs—possesses an elephant form that a Jumbo might enry." He knew there would be some trouble as soon as the ladies husband and her four brothers saw the article, so he packed up his swse and commenced humping it across the plains southwards, after he had kissed ms family, Quite a procession of the lady s fnends hunted him for about ttrrty Wiles, but they missed him,