Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

INTERESTING PROMISSORY NOTE CASE; A NOTICE DI MAIL. IVHAT IS EVIDENCE OF POSTING '- What constitutes sulhcient notice in regard to the dishonouring ot ft promissory note, whs tho question that was answered in twresoned judgment delivered by Dr. M'Arthur yester'l'ho caso was one in -nhlcli tho Erapne Loan Con\pany (Mr. Dix) sued Eaymond W. Marshall (Mr. V. JaAson) for MM 10s. on three promissory notes, together with interest. Uelendaul confessed judgment on the hrst no notes, but contested the third on tho ground that ho had not received notice of dishonour m propor time. Tho note *as for £20, with cording to the evidence, notico of its dishonour interest 10i. It matured on May 22, and, aeon that day *as posted by tho clerk to the defendant. The notico itself bore dato of May 22, and a memo, by ,tho clerk endorsed on tho note stated- "Both parties notified 22i5/09." The cm elope address, in tho handwriting i>l the clerk, bore tho post-mark of May 26, and defendant swore that that was tho envelope which covered tho notice. His Woiship stated that he could see nothing in the owdenco to lead him to doubt tile witnesses, and, the only conclusion that ho could come to, was that, in somd way of other, tho letter containing tho notice had been delajed in the post. His Worship quoted an authority to the elfect that, if a party put a notico Of dishonour into tho post, so that in the due.courso of delivery it would arnvo in time, he had done all that was required of him, nnd it was no fault of Ins that delay occurred in the dohtcry. The po'.t office mark wa l , not conclusive as to tho time nhen a letter was posted. Concerning tho sufficiency of ewdencp as to the posting of a letter, his Worship stated that it was not sufficient that it was written by a merchant in his countinghouse, and put down upon a table for the purpose of being taken to the post office, and that by tho course of business in the counting house all letters on tho table wore carried to the post olfico by a messenger. Some evidence had to be given that tho letter was taken from the counting house fthd put into the post office. Lord Ellcnborough, in Hethenngton v. Kemp, had said "Had you called tho poiter and ho "aid that although he had no recollection of tho letter in question he invariablj earned to the post office all tho ( letters found upon the table, this might have done." ' The present case," said Dr. M'Arthur "is much stronger, Tho clerk who wrote tho notices, also posted them, and says that 'noticei arc nlwajs posted on the day they are written.* The senior clerk also stated. 'I alnajs see that they (i.e. tho notices) are taken aiid posted.'" His Worship considered that there was sufficient evidence of tho notico having been posted on May 22, although tho post-mark on the envelope laised a presumption to tho contrary. That was not, however, conclusive. Judgment would he for plaintiff for the amount claimed, and costs £3 2s. A GOLF INSTEUCTOB'S CASE. In order to recover £3 Us., William Whitehead, golf instructor, sued Dr A. Norman Jono=, dentist (Mr. Sharp). The money was alleged , to be due for "time held at defendant's disposal" for instruction in tho gamo of golf. In tho conrso of a lengthy hearing, plaintiff stated that ho had been engaged by defendant to give him instruction, but defendant had not paid the fce3 chargeable to aim. Defendant, on the other hand, stated that plttintil! had failed on several occasions to meet him at tho golf links. Judgment was entered for defendant. , rULr, PAY OB BROKEN TIME? Leonard Webb (Mr. Cullen) brought an action against Isaac Joseph (Mr. Meredith) to recover tho sum of J!2O 16s. 3d. From the evidence, it appeared that -plaintiff was eraplojed by tho detendant as a ladies' tailor, at A3 ss. a week. After this employment had gone on for some time, the tailoring trade, Milling' the depression of last year, became slack, so defendant told hn hands that he could not keep them all on giving all full time, and would have to dischargo them; but, if,they cared to come in and do what work hero was, ho would lot them do so. All the hands agreed to this, and tho arrangement was worked on for somo months. Later, thero wai somo diisension between plaintiff and de'ifendaut, and plamtiS- claimed-full-timo for ?tho ivhole period, tho difference between this and the amount he had been paid for broken timo being .£2O 16s. 3d. Judgment was given v (or defendant,"" with costs £3 9s. A NEWSPAPER CLAIM. (Befoie Mr. W. Q. Eiddell, S.M.) The Wollington Publishing Company (Mr. Hislop)' proceeded against Frederick E. Mooro (Mr. M'Grath) to recover tho sum of £12 3s. 2d. -Defendant admitted tho amount of the claim, with the oxcoption of an item of ss. Gα., fot which plauitifls did not press, but ho brought a counterclaim lor .£ll ds. 6d. This, ho alleged, was duo to him as moneys advanced by him in tho course 6f his business as representative for Tjie Dominion. After part bf tho evidence had been heard, tho caso was adjourned to December 16. FOE GOODS SUPPLIED. 'A storotceper, of Plimnierton, Donald Edward Robertson (Mr. Webb) claimed from Alexander Cliisholm, labourer,; Fcatherstou (Mr. M'GTaih) the sum of ill Os. 6d. for goods supplied. Judgment was given for plaintiff tor M 14s. 10d., and costs 10s. UNDEFENDED CASES. (Before Dr. A. JTArthur, S.M.) Judgment for plaintiff bj default of dofen--1 dailt, was cnteied up in the following undefended cases:— / "Now Zealand Times" Co., Lta., v. H. Waters, .£l3 17s. 6d., costs J!l 10a. 6d.; Sarah Ann Picenti v. Wm. Hedges, jun., .£l4 7s. 6d., costs .61 Is.; "New Zealand Time-'' Co., Ltd., v. J. A. Muir, £0 Bs., costs £i Ss Cd.; Annie ' Maria Ramsay v. Alick Forsyth, .£1 2s. 6d., edsts ss.- J. G. Wilson v. Arthur Thotoas Whale, £2 12s. 6d., costs 75.; Wellington City Council v. Clara Bajlis, £30 13s. 3d., costs £1 45.; same v. Geo, Henry B. Baylis, £149 Bs. Sd., co»U £2 Is.; Commissioner of Crown Lands \. Fredk Arthur Packer. £28 Is. 3d., costs £3 is.; Wm. Burgoyne Hudson v. Gini An. celini, £4 7t. Gd., costs 135.; Mack)-, Logan, Caldwell and Co. v. Thos. T. Turner. £17 10s. 2d. costs £1 10s. Gd.; Now Zealand Express Co., Ltd., v. H. E. Carde, 11b. Gd., costs 10s. i D.I.C. of New Zealand, Ltd., v. John Candish, £3 10s. Gd., costs 10s.; same v. Edward Henry Mathons, £i, costs 103.; same v. Wm. Ashmore, £5, costs £1 os. 6d.; Empire Loan and Discount Co., Ltd, v. Chas. S. Newson, £11 2s. Gd., costs £1 13?. 6d.; John Edward Fitzgerald v. Edward Smith; £2, costs 10s.; Glyn, Jones v. Pearson and Jaa M. de Montalk and Co., £6 9b. 3d., costs £1 4s. 6d.'; Eobt. Allan Cameron ; v. Jack Ward, £1 135., costs 55.; Thorndon ! Fresh Food Supply Co. v. Sarah Uowberry, £1 3s. 4d., costs 10s.; Allan Anderson v. CharlotM O'Brien, £5 15s. Bd., costs £1 3s. 6d.; "New Zealand Times" Co., Ltd., v. J. E. Fraser, £5 17s. 6d., costs £1 3s. 6d.; Dickorson and Co. v. Albert 000. Stovrart, £97 45.. 6d., coats £3 18s. Gd.;'G. Hardt and Co. v. Archibald M'Phersoh, £99 Bs.' 2d., costs £4 18s. 6d. j GlynJones and Pearson v. Getald H. P. Fitzgerald, £24 17s. Id., cost* £2 145.; Storer, Meok and Co., Ltd., y. Wm. H. Eccles, £1 17s. Bd., costs 55.: Edward , Jae. Foothead v. Hugh Cameron, .811 15s, 6d., costs £1 11s. 6d.; New Zealand Express Co., Ltd., v. A. A. Cuthbertson, 17s. 3d., costs 53.; Alfred Bank's Bacon and Pontry Supply Co., Ltd., v. W. Miller, £12 17s. 3d., costs £1 10s. 6d.; Alex. H. Turnbnll v. M. P. Nanghton, £27 19s. Sd., costs £2 165.; Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society, Ltd., v, Seaforth Simpson Mackenzie, possession and £18 costs, £1 15s. Gd. t JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. In the judgment summons case David Milllgan,y. Geo. H. Anderson, a dobt of £8 65., defendant was ordered to pay the amount on or before January 10, in default 7 days* imprisonment. J. A. Leahy was ordered to pay Scott and Martindalo i debt of £9 11s. 6d., on or before January 10, in default 7 clays' impri«)nment. No order was made in each of the following cases:—Norman ■J. Crabbo v. John Garson Phillips, a debt of £25 7s. Id.; Wm. Nestor v. jFrank Beeves, a dobt of £2 15s.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19091215.2.75

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 690, 15 December 1909, Page 11

Word Count
1,447

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 690, 15 December 1909, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 690, 15 December 1909, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert