MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 3049, 20 November 1908, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MASTERTON-THURSDAY. A civil sitting of the Magistrate's Court was held at Masterton yesterday, before Mr W. P. James, S.M. UNDEFENDED CLAIMS. Judgment by default was given in the following cases:—Ogilvy and Sons v. W. R. Dixon, claim £3 3s, costs 12s; Hallenstein Bros. v. F. C. Winter, claim £1 12s 9d, Krahagen and Chapman v. C. Dorizac, claim £1 18s, costs ss. Judgment summonses—Margaret Lett v. Chas Mclntyre, debt £l9 3s 6d, debtor ordered to pay 20s per month. I Humphrey O'Leary v. Edward Coyie, debt £5 10s 9d, no appearance of debtor, who was ordered to pay £3 10s 9d, in default seven days imprisonment, order suspended for 14 days. DEFENDED CASES. Malvina Coburn sued John Young for £1 3s tuition fees for musicDefendant desired to set off various amounts for services alleged to have been rendered plaintiff. Judgment was given for the amount claimed and 6s costs. The New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company (Mr P. L. Hollings) sued A. C. McDonell for £133 7s 6d, the value of stock alleged to have been sold to defendant, at various dates, for grazing fees, and interest on the amount owing in the first instance. DeitncUmi was represenuu oy ivir C. .4. i 0..nail. Arthur lorns and Joseph lorns, employees of the plaintiff company, gaye for plaintiff, and defendant ~&im evidence on his own behalf,* > Judgment was entered | or £124 9s and 4510 6s costs. " , * i?!w Lincoln Murray, drajlfr ?: MasteVtaif sued Albert Edward Haswell, of Levin, storekeeper's assistant, "for £46 7s 6d for rent of a shop and premises leased by plaintiff to defendant on October 27th, at a weekly rental of £3 10s, 13 ■weeks of which—from June loth, 1907, to September 16th, 1907 was still owing, 17s 6d being also claimed for repairs effected during the ten-

ancy. ! Defenadnt counter-claimed for £SO for misrepresentation causing loss to him in respect of the premises, plaintiff having agreed that no other tenant in the buildings should compete with defendant in his business, and that.the building would be ready for occupation several weeks earlier than was actually the case. Mr D. K. Logan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Webb (of Messrs Hamilton, Andrew and Webb, Wellington"* for defendant. Wiliam S. Craig, china and glass importer, of Wellington, D. A. Morton, warehouseman, of Wellington, and defendant, gave evidence in support of the the tenor of which was in support of the allegations contained in / the counter-claim—that plaintiff Murray had declared that the building would be ready at a certain date. Witnesses Morton and Haswell also stated that plaintiff had said he would not allow other tenants to compete with them. J. L. Murray, plaintiff, said he did not consider the other businesses being carried on when defendant had the premises did any harm to the latter's business. It was, he thought, a good thing for defendant's business to have the other tenants in the building with the class of business such other tenants carried on. Witness explained that a shed which defendant claimed damages for late erection of was delayed through a bylaw being altered. C. A. Tabuteau also gave evidence. 2££^ The Magistrate gave judgment for the full amount, of the claim, and also in favour of Murray on the counter-claim. His Worship thought there had been no such inducement to take the lease as would entitle defendant to claim damages and especially as defendant had since thrown up the lease. Costs were awarded plaintiff to the amount of £5 18s. reserved" JUDGMENT GIVEN. Mr James gave judgment in the claim of the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Co., Ltd, v. Oliver Bubb, heard last week. judgment read:—"ln this case I am not satisfied that the Company was authorised [to purchase on account of the defendant 600 sheep. The sale note is for 600, but it is admitted by the Company that defendant never intended at any time to take more than 400. The agent says that he was authorised to purchase 6CO in defendant's name, and that the Company was to dispose of 200 of them. The evidence in such that I cannot say that I am satisfied of the Company's agency or that their was at any time a clear understanding that the sheep were to be bought on defendant's account. If there had been such an understanding the sale note shows that a sale took place from W. Cresswell to Bubb, and unless there was a distinct authority given by defendant to the Company to take delivery of the sheep and dispose of them on the defendant's behalf the Company not being a party to the contract, could not sue. 1 am not satisfied by the evidence that their was any such authority. The Company's agent states there was authority; the defendant denies absolutely giving such authority. The plaintiff Company claims in the alternative upon an account stated, and relies for such claim upon a letter dictated by the agent of the Company in the presence of defendant to a shorthand clerk who returned with a typewritten "batter which was read by the agent to defendant. The letter commenced:—"l make you the following otter tor submission to your Wellington manager for my indebtedness to you £125 as follows.' Then follows an offer of different dated postal-notes totalling £6O. This letter the defendant was asked to sign and he did so. Now one must look at the circumstances under which that letter was signed. The Company had been threatening defendant for some time with an action. He had denied his liability, but the agent had interviewed defendant's banker, and requested him to get defendant to make some offer of settlement. The banker had seen defendant who again denied any liability. The banker advised de-1 fendant that it waH better some I

times to suffer an injustice sooner than go to law, andjwrote to the agent to the same effect. The defendant on the advice of his banker, in my opinion, called at the Company's office to see the agent and make an offer. The letter was intended by defendant to be only an offer to pay a sum which he was prepared to pay rather than have a law suit, and as advised by his banker, it was not intended to be any acknowledgment of his indebtedness to the extent of £125. I cannot therefore accept it as an account stated. Plaintiff would be nonsuited.