CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 125, 19 February 1908, Page 9

CIVIL BUSINESS.

• (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) undeeended'cases. r ''~ : Judgment for plaintiff by. default of defendant . was givon in the ' .following ; civil casosMrs. Graco Nicol; v. Harry Jbnncr, £5 2s. 6(1.,' costs £1 Gtl.; Francis Loudon v. Frederick Bcethani, £10,.costs £1 Bs. Od.'; Harris Morris v. Ei>hraim'"Nonlcn, £8 Bs. 'Id.', costs, 10s. ; Jane Siogel v. Kathleen. Matthews, £2,. costs 12s. ;'Hamerton Andrew and Webb v. Alfred Daniel Walton, 145., costs'; 2s.'; George' -Edward Odlin ' V; John Cook, £25 135,, and . possession, ■ costs £2 ICs.; G. Hardt and Company, Limited v. Charles Lyon, £31 15s. 8d:, costs £2 145.; J. Myers and Company v. Joseph Alfred Fletcher, £25 155.'0 d., costs" £2 145.; H, Oscar Hewitt and Company, Limited v. Ercsierick. Thomas Gush, £7, costs £1 3s! Od:; Sedgwick- Brothers v. Walter •(!. Wiljun:,'£r 7s. Od., coats 55.; H. '• Oscar Hewett and Company, Limited v. Arthur Henderson, £4 65., costs 13sl; 1 • Same vi William H. ■ Saillor, £3 10s., costs 125.; Jaines Smith'and Sons v. William Pay, £3 16s. 5d., costs ss. ; John Duthio and Company, Limited v. A l'eters and Son, £8 Os. 7d.', costs 18s.j 6d. . ; J UDGMENT SUMMONSES..: ■ lii the,.judgment summons case, Wellington Loan Company, ,bmiitcd : y. . AVurwiqk AVeston,'a' v debt of £5 3s. 3d., debtor was

ordered- to pay on or before March 3, in default 7 days' imprisonment. In the case Ghurles William Martin v. Michaol Lano, a debt of £3 Is. Gd., debtor was ordered to pay on or before March 3, in dofault 3 days' imprisonment. No. order was made in the case James Smith and Sons v. Daniel Flynn, a debt of £10 13s. 'Id. POSSESSION OF A HORSE. William Henry Hook, marino engineer, sued' Henry Arthur Gold, iiccoiuntant, for possession of a horse, or tho value of the animal, £20, and £5 damages. , Plaintiff's case set out that in 1905 his brother, Lewis Hook| was in partnership as a grocor with one Olson. Lowis Hook wished to buy his partner out, and for tho purpose of raising tho monoy sold a horso to plaintiff for £20, but retained the animal in nis possession for nearly two years. In November, 1307, Lowis Hook assigned his estato, and, it was alleged, delivered the animal to plaintiff boforo doing so. Defendant, as trusteo for Lowis Hook's creditors, obtained, possession of tho animal, unlawfully, it was alleged. Therefore plaintiff claimed for tho return of tho horso or its value, and £5 -damages for its dotentiou. . . Without calling on tho defenco, His Worship held that the horse had. been in tho constructive possession of Lewis Hook up to tho assignment of his estate, and therefore under tiio bankruptcy law belonged to tho creditors. He. therefore gave judgment for defendant, with costs £1 12s. On the application of Mr. P. Jackson, counsel for plaintiff, leavo to appeal on a question of law was granted, the security being fixed .at £10 10s.. Mr:-C.Neilson appeared for defendant. : REFUSAL TO ACCEPT DELIVERY. . John Arthur M'lntosh, trading as the Novelty Advertising Company, sued Evison and Lambert, mercers, for £17 10s., a claim for damages for refusal to accept delivery of 600 hat-racks ordered by defendants. Mr. Morisoii appeared for plaintiff, anil Mr'. Fitzgibbon for'defendants. . ; Plaintiff alleged that in May, 1907, ! his traveller called on defendants, "and secured'a order for 500' hat-racks. Tho racks, each' branded- with defendants' business names ■ and address, wore duly forwarded, but defendants refused to accopt delivery. For'tho dofciico it was stated that when"the' written order' was given- to .plaintiff's traveller a verbal contract was mado with him that no other firm in tho : city should bo supplied with similar goods for'siilo. Another firm, however, had 1 been supplied with tho same class of hat-racks, and defendants con-, seijuently repudiated the contract. Defendants, however, could not produco any ovi- ! donco in support of tho, statement regarding tho verbal contract, tho traveller in question being away fromtho;Dominiotu His Worship held that he could not place a verbal contract • against a written one, and gave judgment for plaintiff for'the amount claimed, wit! costs £2 Is:■ ' ■ RESERVED JTJDGMENT. ; BUILDING SOCIETY SHARES. : Resorved' judgmont was given by Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., in the case of tho 'Johnsonvillo Co-operative Building Society v. Frcdk. Sohlaik,, a claim by plaintiff for £5, being commission on tho.salo for. £100 of an: appropriation of £500 in tho plaintiff Society, mado ou behalf and at the request of defendant on October 10, 1906. r In His Worship's opinion',' - -based entirely on tho woight of evidence, tho sale , was not effected, by tho Society or,,,its-secretary./- No. authority to sell .was producod, and. no meino.'.of agree-' morit was sccu'ral by tho'secretary of tho Society or by -ahyono'on behalf of the Socioty. Judgment was ■ given for defendant, with posts -'-£l Is. Mr. .Toogobd appeared - for. plamtiff, .and 3lr: -Hindmarsh. for defendant.