MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 11916, 10 June 1904, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Mr W. R. ffaselden, S.M., presided at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. DEFAULT CASES. In tho following midefe~ckd civil cate, in. which the defendant did not appear, judgment waa given for the plaintiff by default:—Thos. Peafold and Son v. J. Jarman. , A CLAIM FOtf COMMISSION. The. adjourned coso of Magnus and Co. (Mr Hoban) v Crosscy (Mr Neave), in which tho claim waa for £67 10s, commission on tho tale of an hotel at Kaikoura, waa continued. The defence was that defendnnt did not place the hotel in the hands of Magnus and Co. for sale, and that the transaction was performed through" Dwan Bros., of Wellington, and not tha plaintiffs. After hearing evidence his Worship reserved his decision. A MOTOR CAB CASE. G. J. Black (Mr Hunt) sued R. O. Schauman (Mr Harvey) for £200, alleged to be due a» part payment for a motor oar purchased by the defendant. The statement of claim showed that on February 25th the plaintiff cold the defendant a motor car for £300. He received £100 in cash, and was induced to accept 200 pharos- in tho New Zealand Advertising and House Cleaning Company, fully paid up, and of a faco value of £1 each, as balance of the purchase money. Defendant represented that tlie frharce were worth £1 each, but according to the plaintiff's allegation, ho knew that tliey were worthless. Tlie plaintiff gavo evidence to this effect and tstdted that he took tlie defendant's word that the Company was paying well. Two months later lie was notified that tho _ompany was in liquidation. The motor' car.was in gcod condition when he sold it to the defendant.

William H. Gundry, accountant, stated that ho had examined the Company's books, which showed that it had never been paying. Charles J. Wilson, liquidator of the Company, stated that tho liabilities when it waa wound up wore about £274, as againtt assets £154. The concern was paying well till it was formed into a Company in December, with Schauman aa Chairman of Directors.

His Worship hold that the plaintiff had failed to prove deceit or wilful misrepresentation. Judgment was given for the defendant.