R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2990, 30 August 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

:. ' ; (Before Si Yon'Sturmor, R.M.) BREACH BY-LAWS. s ~r J. 0. Ingram v. W. Parkes. • Foulj chimney. Defendant admitted the chimney was on fire, but stated that it was not through;neglect. Tlio chimney was swept three weeks since, and had been swept five times this year.. , Fined 10s and costs 2s.

.... Same, ,v. -E.-Braggins; -Allowingsheep to wander at large. Defendant pleaded guilty and was fined Is and costs 2s, itibeing a first offence. ; ...

BREACH OF WHEEL-TIRE BY LAW. i i P. O. lidon,y s Defendant.was', char, <d|With allowing a yehicle to ; be ruii in his name; with wheels not of,the regiilatjori'width and pleaded said aSsoon as he got' the li days nbllce re-wheel-tires he»had the-'recessary alterations made, J^ut'Unfortunately the coach' in :being'brought,do,wii-was throwni bver the liijl and hence the,delay in gettihg thavehicle on ths'rond. Hehad'been ruti'mng: the coiicl) with tires of theregiilation .wiilth since Monday, i i; Taking the accident into consideration; His Worshipjnflicted a pebalty of 103 and costs'7s. : . :' . i\; i;^ v vv'-: ciyiii. j. ■i • ■ .Tames Page v. Robert C. Smith. Mr Bunny'for plaintiff, no appearance of defendant.,. Claim £4 9s 4d, cash lent and interest thereon. Plaintiff deposed' to the money being advanced to dpfundant who had agreed to pay him ;, tan per cent, for the loan of it, i

Judgment for amount claimed, LI 9b 4d,- Court coats 7s, and solicitor's fea 21a. . --• J

Ernest Haro v, J., Sleemaii.—Claim £G, valuo' of a -silver watch sold to defendant. \Ji \ \/ :

Judgment for amount claimed,; and Court costs 12s.

R, Hurev. E. Naylov.—Judgment summons £llßs Bd. Order made for payment at the rate of 25s per month, in default H days imprisonment. Charles Forsberg v. J. Goodgame. —No appearance sof either party. Struck out. Alexander McLeod t. B. Budden,— Mr Beard for defendant. No appeal', anee of plaintiff. : ' Judgment for defendant with costs against plaintiff, Court : costs' \s 6/1. Witness' expenses 10s, , G.' S. W. Dalryraple v. John Living.i stone.—Claim, £29, for commission on sale of property. Mr! Skipper for plaintiff, Mr Bunny for defendant. Mr Skipper stated' that : liis client was engaged by tlie defendant .to sell a certain property which liad ' entailed considerable labor. He introduced the property to a Mr. ißrodie,, which: ultimately resulted iu a sale ; to the latter for £2,000. He claimed commission ou tliat amount, at tlio nitfl;of per cent, and £8 2s 3d commission on tho Stock.. Tliohalf of the claim account .liad been paid by one . partner,, Mr Douglas. His client now sought to recover the 'Balance, from tlie defendant (Mr Livingstone), who was the other partner. ■■ !- U: - i 1 G. S. W. 'Dalrym'plo, the plaintiff, deposed lie knew! tlie. defendant, .and Mr Douglas as.partners hillock of land at To Ore .Ore, Was instructed on the (Sth January, 1887, in writing,' to dispose of their interests. His Worship asked if their was a written agreement for the disposal of the property. ' j ' Mr Skipper said there was no written agreement, hut after the service had-been.rendered an agreement was made by Mi" Livingstone to pay his client the commission,

Mr Bunny demanded to see tbeagreement for the sale to btf effected, He asked the Court to noto his demand, Witness continued: He read the instructions given to him by defendant. • Mr Bunny: Wo admit the authority to sell, •

Witness: Prior to meeting Mr Bro r die, he received fresh instructions from Mr Douglas, sth September, who instructed him to sell tho property lor £2OOO, with the option of taking the stock at valuation. He saw Mr Brodie in Mastertoii and introduced this property to liirn. Witness took a carnage and drovo Mr Brodie over to To Ore Ore where Mr Livingstone was living. Tlioy all went over part of the property together. Arrangements were then made that Mr Brodie should stay a day or two with Mr Livingstone for the purpose of seeing the block. Mr Livingstone frequently interviewed witness and urged liim to look aftor Mr Brodie. Tho upshot of it was that the property was ultimately sold for .£2OOO with stock at valuation. Not being satisfied witness wrote a document and said unless Livingstone Bigned that and gave it to liim (wit-: ness) the sale Wild not be completed. Up to that time Mr Livingstone Had not raised any objection to the payment of his share of the commission. Mr Livingstone took the paper and said he would see Mr Gawithl eJhortly after he returned with it and signed it, (paper produced). Therp 'was a delay over partnership matters between Douglas and Livingstone. The agroe- 1 mentwas drawn up by a solicitor. On. October 26 Mr Livingstone was at his office, and in consequence of what Mr; Douglas told him witness challenged Mr Livingstone with waiitiug to'do liim out of liftlf the coinmitioii,.'. iivingstane tried to put liiin off without giving a straightforward, answer : The Clerk of the Court, Mr Freeth, examined tho document aiid stated that it was insufficiently stamped and was liable to a penalty of £5, In answer to. Mr Skipper lie said, an agreement relating to land required a ■2s.(id stamp, and tho document produced had only a shilling stamj .at tached. The Act was produced and I& WorShip snid lie did not see that it TO neoeasary to liavo more than a shilling stamp on the document produced.. •

The . sale was fimJly . completed on 19tli November., Witness' duties wefe completed on 20th Gctober.

Gross-esamined by slr B.piy s The agreement produjjeil ps the iioounfynt referred cm his bill of partictulip on wbioh lie' isued. The document was signed after ho sold ilip property. Mr 0.8, Brodio TO tli? purchaser. To tho lxM <Jf

liia :liiio\vledgo lie. giveb ji2ooo. . Ho was not prepared 'to swear, that Mr Brodis/did not buy, Douglass' iulerost oftly■ for Llooo)Jv'He was paid. commission by Douglas, and lie • claimed/from 1 ! Livingstone also, but bad not been paid. He was arbitra- . in the settlement of winding up of that . : firms affairs., , -Ho did not threaten to' ; make'it-TOrm.fpr. .Mf'.'Livingstone -if :••••:• lie did not sign that dooumentr. He ' certainly did jhis ( utmost tbget Mr Livingstone to sign* Livingstone refiised to sign-the docuuient-until he' • had. 6een JhiSj Bo|icitof, j He never, repudiated his Mobility ■ before -ta; cMengfld him on 82tli Oetokr.; sold Mr Livinimjstone's interest to Mr. ■Brbdie'for < LIOOO /together Douglas. On,2oth Jauuair received a letter froiii Toenail, solicitor, enclosing a cheque for LlO 15dr0m Bi'odie anil Livingstouo in full faction Of all'MaimS' against Liwg- ■ r stone. He beliejed Mr Livingstone took away' 1 llii'' memo -of the 25tU October. Did not know Mt "Brodie'B means. . 0 . . •,,, » To' .tlid Bench :l IDII6 sfcle'took, jrtace oil the 2Stli October, and the arEi - "* tmtion ovor the partnership took place iuj.October andNov,embei\;]; i , (Left Sitting.)