S.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4753, 21 June 1894, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-THURSDAY (BeforeMrT Hutchison, SM) Budget Robinson v.Chas Robinson —Theic was no appeaiance of the compliment Mr W G Boaid on bohalf of the defendant; asked that the infoimation should be dismissed His Worship decided to dismiss tho infoimation Waddingtonv R E Hoinblow— Mr Beard then nddrcssd the Court on this case. He contended that by holding himself out to be interested in'a' concern which he was selling, a man' lost his' title to commission,, by misleading tho person with whom lie was dealing. In support:of. this contention Mr Beard citod authorities and cases. The misrepresentation might bo iiitentipnal or unintentional. not n'ocessary to'make-an 'absolute statement of a. misrepresentation! His client, .if he lost, the caso would not get.thb total purchase money, for the commission would havo to bo deducted from it. If his client had not proved that Mr Waddington was connected with tho Company, it was quite certain that the plaintiff had not proved that ho was not connected with the firm... _Mr Pownall said hewoiild address himself chiefly to tho question of estoppel. If MrWaddingtondidmake a misrepresentation, it did not affect Mr Hornblow's, actions.after the misrepresentation' was' found' out, He did not consider that tho statement or conduct of tho plaintiff did in any way bind Mr Hornblow to sell to a particular person or company, His Worship, in giving judgment, remarked that the law had boon thoroughly thrashed out. Ho had heard argument on both sides, but saw no reason to alter the opinion at which ho had; arrived-in the morning. The plaintiff was suing dofendant for commission as dofondant's agent in tho sale of his printing business. The defence was that plaintiff, by representing himself as identified with tho purchasers, was not entitled to commission on thesalo effected by him, as agent, of tlie business. Tho defendant also wished to show that plaintiff was interested. He (Mr Hutchison) had intimated, at the conclusion of tho evidence that the testimony given had satisfied him that the plaintiff was simply agent, and not interested as a partnor in the business of thepurchasers. Again, ho could not find in the defendant's evidenoe, any clear proof of the plaintiff having represented himself as so interested, Tho question was ono of facts. On the facts ho considered that the plaintiff had not represented himself as being connected with tho company, or ns anything but agent. Ho .would therefore give jndgmont for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs £1 6s. ~ ' ■•.-■■ GayfervN.Z.D.F.U. Argument with reference to notice of acceptance _ of payment into Court of a certain part of the amount claimed in a suit was then taken. After hearing a considerable amount of argument by counsel, His Worship decided to give his decision tomorrow morning. Jas, McKcinm v. R, Harvey, Mr Pownall for plaintiff explained the circumstances of the case. Ho then called the plaintiff, who stated he was suiug the defendant (who was a hawkor) for the rent for 28 weeks of a store, on the main road, Tonui, Ho charged tho defendant 5s per week, which was what he (plaintiff) was paying himself for it. I The dofendant, for whom MiBeard appeared, stated that ho was a hawker,. He leased the shed, not from the plaintiff, but from Taylor, deceasod. He was ready to pay for the shed. The Public Trustee had not asked him for the rent,

The Court thon adjourned until 2 o'clock,