MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIX, Issue 303, 23 December 1898, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THURSDAY,

(Before Mr H. W. Brabant, S.M.)

Undefended Cases.—Judgment -went for plaintiff by default in the following cases:—Rosebery Coal Co. (Wm. Handley and S. Hall Matthews, liquidators) v. Wm. F._ Bell, claim £30, costs £2 14/;- W. S. Jones v. Henry Melville £2 11/6, costs 11/; Paterson and Co. v. John Drever £39 4/5, costs £3 1/; Alfred Buckland and Son v. Wells Bros. £5 13/11, costs £1 7/6; Colonial Sugar Refinig Con. v. Agnew and Pilkington £11 6/4, costs £2 3/6; Lowe Bros. v. Paget £2 17/3, costs 5/;. John L. Colbeck v. Albert At. B. Davis £13, costs £1 12/6; Singer Manufacturing Co. v. John Galbraith £4 5/, costs 15/; A. H. Nathan v. M. J. Houlihan £94 1/4, costs £6 7/; J. R. Lundon v. C. A. Martin £1 13/4, costs 5/; J. W. McCov v. Mrs E. Byers £3 3/, feosts 10/; W. H. Webbe v. H. F. Gotz £20, costs £2 6/; John Chambers and Son v. P. A. Smith £6 6/3, costs £1 3/6; John Iredale v. Mrs Kate Morrison £3 18/11, costs 10/; G. Kronfeld v. Patrick O'Meagker £1 14/3, costs 5/; Arnold Ware (Hercules Bicycle Company) v. Hill £1 5/9, costs 5/; S. J. Best and Co. v. Colton and Thomson £ 1 8/9, costs 5/.

Kinlock v. Hill.—ln the case Hall Kinlock v. Forbes Hill, claim £3 1/6 for repairs to a spring cart, the plaintiff was non-suited, defendant being allowed costs. Mr Purchar, appeared for plaintiff; Mr Mahony for the defence.

A Question of Commission.—Alex. Morton v. Simson and Co., claim £16 S/9. Mr Burton for plaintiff; Mr Wilson Smith for defendant. Plaintiff was commissioned to sell oats and chaff for defendant, and (with the exception of 9/1. a balance of account not disputed) the claim was for commission at the rate of 2-\ per cent. The defendant had paid into Court £5 11/1 to cover a commission at 1] per cent., alleged to be the agreed and usual commission; and disputed the claim for commission on the sale of chaff on the ground that the chaff could not be delivered, and that it was not the custom of agents to charge commission in such cases. His Worship in giving-judgment decided that the plaintiff could only recover the 1] per cent, offered. As to the claim for commission on the sale of chaff, His Worship said the plaintiff had no agreement as to the time when the commission became payable, and his case depended on the course of dealing between the parties and on the custom to pay commission; and there could be no injustice in making the payment subject to such limitations as were customary, and which plaintiff should have known when he entered on the work. Judgment must therefore pass for the defendant.