S.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4747, 14 June 1894, Page 3

S.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-THURSDAY,

(BeforcMr T. Hutchinson, S.M.)

W. G. Beard v. 11. Wishaw,— Claim, £3 18s, for professional services rendered. Judgment by default,

H, Fmscr v. G, Carter,—Claim, £2O 4s 3d, balance of account of £4O 4s 3d. Judgment by default and costs, £ll3s. Mr Bunny for plaintiff.

I'airbird v. C. R, Wilson.—By consent of Plaintiff, execution stayed for one month.

C. A. l'ownall v. M. MoKenzio.— Claim, £36, for balance' of account for professional sorvicos. Mr Jackson appeared for tho defendant,

This ra 11 case in respect of an adjournment of a month had been granted, <

The defendant stated that lie had promised plaintiff £SO for certain legal work. In connection with some further charges against luni (defendant), plaintiff had claimed a sum of £ls for expenses in Wellington, Ho (tlefendunt) had also promised to pay £25 to plaintiff at some future time, when lie could afford it. Had not up to the present been in a position to pay. To Mr Pownall: It was not a fact that ho (defendant) had promised plaintiff £25 if lie got liim clear of all tbo charges preferred. Ho lmd never been in a position to pay, Had received £7O out of his mother's estate, but owed it for rent, and work, A settlement was arrived at in Court by the parties, for the payment by the defendant of £2 per month, The Bench accordingly made out an order for payment of amount claimed, less £4 and costs of Court, .

15. 11, Waddington v. R, E, Hornblow claim for £l2 lGs Gd.

Mr Pownall appeared for plaintiff stated that his client who was a commission agent in Masterton, sued Mr It. E, Hornblow for the amount of commission on a sale of the business, Tho amount claimed was the percentage of live per cent, on £228, MrPownall continued at some length to explain the circumstances of the case which appear in the evidence, - Edward Horatio Waddington, the plaintiff, deposed he was a commission agent in Masterton, Ho charged five per cont. as his commission in this matter. The defendant called at his (plaintiff's) office at the beginning of May, and asked plaintiff to sell out his job-printing office, as lie saw a good chanco for making money at cattle. Defendant mentioned £450 for the business. At first he thought defendant was joking; but when ho found ho was in earnest, he (plaintiff) asked defendant to write down jn bljick uml white, He did so, and wrote dowu what ho would take, 6n the slip produced. Part of'the writing was in Hornblow's handwriting.; part was in his (plaintiff's) handwriting taken down at Hornblow's dictation. The amount asked wai £IOO for the goodwill, and balance on approved bills for thegood-will of tho, business and stock at valuation, or as an alternative tho whole business for £300,; It also stated that' the defendant had by copyright tho sole right of tho.insets from the Tract Depot and an agreement with Mr G. S. W. Dahymplo of Mr BrantOn's rent of 12s Cd per \veok for one year. Both of theso .went with' the goodwill.; This was a statement- by. the defendant. He. submitted Mr Hornblow's offer to-Mr Gillespie, who ho boliorecj, whsjookihg for ii Minos?. He£aßted. .only' on Mr tk&oiint,' aiid : n6t for ,'ii purchaser. i Ho sawGi{lespi(>, wlio liad : toicojisuil his of

good-will at£;l2j>:and stock atvalnatiori, Ho ffibmed/Hprnblow that Effected on liis teime i Hornblow - then; saidf he -had not the ; profits On- the" building and. 'then aske'd L'l2s foi ,; tho goodwill, > Stated tliat- 1 he would, again "offer, to tho I pro-, Did- so and L2swas;agreed to by;the'ip.iu'chaseV on the stiltementf!-of,the■■defeiidant. ho (plaintiff);.and/defendant went to Mr Gawith's office. ' Tho purchaser, Gillespio, followed, and anagroement was made, AfteVthis vcridorandpurchaser. dealt. .directly., .with one another, as lie considered when tho I agreement was effpetod, his part of the business wascomplotcd, Afterwards Hornblow came aid nßked liinv to offer Gillespio L 25 to -buy off tho right of pin-chase. Ho (plaintiff) stated that it would mean more than that, as there would bo his commission to como out, Afterwards defendant, asked liitu to offer. Gillespio L3O, He ; suggested that witness should in the event of Gillespie's occb'ptiug this offer, deduct his commission from the £3O. Witness rcfusod. Shortly afterwards tho salo .was concluded, £258 8s Od bciug paid for tho goodwill, and stock at valuation. Wheii tlio parties, were in Mr Gawith's office at tho final assignment of the property, witness claimed his commission, and stated that he would take a bill for his. commission. Hornblow replied'that lie did not admit that commission was due, and'said that it was-a mattor for settlement afterwards. Witness replied that if it was not paid within 3 days ho would summon defendant, Hornblow, Gillespio and witness were all present at this interview. By Mr Beard; Hornblow was tho first to broach tho subject, He did not at any time state to Hornblow that he was going to try in with a friend. A deposit of £l.O was'haiidcd iu by witness. He received considerably more than £lO from Gillespie and Co. He did not pay it without authority. This was money ho had received from Gillespie for the purpose of making his deposit. Mr Beard:. Had you a larger or a smaller sum than £lO of Gillespie and Coy.'s, Witness: That is a question I refuse to answor. ■

Witness, being pressed by the Bench, stated that it was considerably more than £lO. Ho could not swear that ho did not advance tho money to Gillespie and Co. for tho purpose of paying tho deposit. Gillespie and Co, was made up of several people. He was not in any way interested. [Loft Sitting,]

The case Gayfer v. N.Z.D.F.U., lias been settled out of Court. i