MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7345, 25 June 1889, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, June __ (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Affiliation. — Alexander Webb wat charged with refusing to contribute towards the support of the illegitimate child of Emily Rountree. Mr Stringer appeared for /plaintiff, Mr Nalder for defendant. The paternity was admitted, and defendant was ordered to pay 7s 6d for the usual term, finding one security ia £50. . ~'.

Crvn. Cases.—Smith v Heppel, claim £42 17s 3d. MrStringer for the plaintiff, Mr Deacon for the defendant. Plaintiff, on May 7th, instructed the defendant, who is a sharebroker, to purchase for him 200 shares in the Big River Extended Goldm—ling Company, Reef ton, the market price of the scrip being then 4s 3d. Defendant in a day or two informed him that he bad purchased at that price, and on May 15th saying that he wanted the money to meet the draft which was on its way with the transfer, he applied for and got plaintiff's cheque for £4- 17s 3d. being the cost of 200 shares at 4s 3d, with cost of stamp, &c, added, and he cashed the cheque, giving plaintiff a bought note, " Bought on account of and for H. Smith, 200 shares, &c." On May 21st defendant told the plaintiff that the transfer had arrived, but he (defendant) would • not accept it, as it was. dated March 16th; he had sent it back, and a proper transfer would arrive in a few days. On May 23rd plaintiff, not liking the appearance of the transaction, asked to have his money returned. He was still willing to take the scrip and thought it would Sresently come forward, but objected to efendant holding his money in the interval. After this plaint—f applied several times to have his money returned or delivery of the scrip but without effect, and on June 7th he wrote a letter te defendant threatening proceedings law within twenty-four hours unless the transaction was completed. Defendant then forwarded him a transfer form, ostensibly for tbe purpose of securing to plaintiff the purchase of shares, as agreed upon. In this paper the name of the Company was put as the "Big River Quartz Company." The numbers of tbe scrip were not quoted,' and defendant appeared as the vendor. Plaintiff declined to have anything to do with this because it was not stamped, and because he knew that defendant had no shares in the Company. Nothing more came of it, and plaintiff now brought hia action to recover the amount of _is cheque. The market value of the shares in the meantime had fallen to Is Sd. Tho defence was that the delay in completing was not for want of diligence on the part of the defendant, who had duly Informed plaintiff of the rejection of the first transfer, and the plaintiff approved his action in returning it. A valid transfer had since come to hand, and the scrip now lay at the office of the Company at tne disposal of the plaintiff. He always considered himself as plaintiff's agent. If there had been any negligence, tho plaintiff had condoned it. In cross-ex-amination defendant admitted that he had bought the scrip for himself at 4s, considering the 3d extra, which he charged, to plaintiff, as his profit. Mr Stringer, addressing the Court, said that the defendant had acted as principal where be was employed as an agent, so that the contract between him and plaintiff was void. Supposing that plaintiff agreed to deal with him as principal, time was the essence of such contracts, and the delay in completion of the transfer freeplaintiff from any liability, beside which the blank transfer offered waa ,of no use, it was invalid in several ways. It defendant was to be considered as plaintiff's agent, he stood in a. still worse position, for in that case he had charged 3d per share more than what he gave for them, thus seeking to make a double profit, for the custom was that the vendor paid commission on all sales. Moreover, it waa his duty, as an agent, to supply a bough, note to the purchaser and a sold note to the vendor, filled in with their names, thus placing them in direct relation. This had not been done. If the course which defendant took were allowed, it would open the door to many and obvious frauds. And when the plaintiff demanded bis money back, it was a revocation of any contract between plaintiff and defendant as principal and agent. Mr Beetham said he would consider the caseu It was clear that defendant had contracted to act as agent, and had made hlmseU principal. The question was, had plaintiff condoned, though, acting aa hi did without the knowledge of what de* fendant was doing, there did not seem—l be any thing to condone. Jordan vKliingen* stein, claim £2 for wages. Mr McConnel for plaintiff. Defendant sought to deduct 15s od expensee paid for the recovery of a horse saia to have strayed away through Slaintiffs negligence. Mr Beetham said efendant might as well seek to recover the cost of jugs or dishes broken by a servant firl, and gave judgment for plaintiff, udgments went for plaintiffs by default, in Fletcher v Saunders £8 2s 6d, and Fuhrmann v Barker, jun., £218s 4d; Garnett t Deal was adjourned till September 23rd.

TEMUILA. Monday, June 24. . '•« ' [Before Captain Wray, R.M.I Trespass—Michael Carr was cnarged with trespassing on the property of YT. G. Aspinall, Esq., at Milford, on the 16th inst. Accused pleaded guilty. Judgment was reserved, pending the hearing of a similar case. Arthur Selby was charged on the information of J. Murray with trespassing on the property of the estate of the late W. K. McDonald, at Rangftata. Mr W. G. Aspinall prosecuted. From the evidence of informant, it appeared that he (Mr Murray) met accused shooting on land of which he was manager. He cautioned him and his companion, ,and they agreed to leave. He had given accused leave to shoot two years ago, and showed him where to shoot. It transpired that when accused and his companions were going away a rabbit had got up, and one of the party had shot it. Accused had given the name of John Jones. A fine of 20s was inflicted with costs allowed, A similar fine was inflicted in Carr's case. •-■,•. Crvn. Cases.—J. Crow vD. Leach, claim ss, balance of amount due. After hearing evidence, the case was adjourned' for.* week, his Worship advising them to settle the case out of Court. J. Patrick vQ. Husband, claim £6 10s tor rent Mr Aspinall for plaintiff. Judgment by default with costs. J. Mclnnes v Mrs Polaschek, claim £7. Mr Aspinall, for plaintiff, asked for an adjournment on account of Mr Hay. who represented defendant. Adjourned for a week. Tho Court then rose. *"'