LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1608, 27 November 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Dr. A. Jt'Arthur, S.M.) THE JOKE PER TELEGRAM. TO SKIN BUYER. THE SENDEE TO PAY DAMAGES. In the Magistrate's Court yesterday Dr. iU'Artnur, b.JI., delivered judgment m the case 111 wnieh James Gowuik Uodwin, wool and skin buyer, Wellington. (represented by Mr. Myers), sued Davidson and Co., exporters, 'Wellington, (represented by Mr. "Yvilford), tor .£4O. Tlie following is a resume of Godwin's statement 01 claim Shortly before August 20, 1912, he, (piaintiii) received instructions iroin i'ay and Co., of Wellington, mercaants, to attend certain sales at Blenheim, and to purchase skins there as agents tor them. He was to be paid. 2 per cent. on. .the value of the purchases thus uiade. Wliile at Blenheim on August 20, plaintiff, received a telegram, the body of which read: — "Avoid pushing Wellington buyers. K-educe limits jd. London anticipates skins will decline." The telegram was unsigned, but the plaintiff naturally believed that it had been sent by I'ay and Co., and he acted upon tnat belief. By reason of the receipt' of this telegram and the instructions which it contained, plaintiff had been unable to purchase any skins, lie .whole of the skins, in fact, -. having been purchased by a representative of the defendants. The telegram had not been sent by Fay and Co., but by defendants, or by George . Davidson, a member of the defendant firm. Plaintiff had suffered ;t'4o damages, and that amount lie soiight to recover. . At the hearing of the case, George P. H. Davidson, a member of the defendant firm, admitted- in evidence that he had sent the telegram, but added that he had no intention of injuring anyone, and had merely' done it as a practical joke. Plaintiff and his partner j had previously played jokes on him, such as pntting lettered tickets on their- hats and hanging stencilled placards about their premises. , "1 confess,"'said his Worship, in the course of his judgment, "I am not satisfied as to the explanation given by the defendants. . . . Vile manner of the two in giving the explanation did not impress inc. Neither can I understand .Davidson's assertion, that plaintiff, .would take an unsigned telegram as coming .from Davidson and. Co. If plaintiff did take it as coming from the defendants, whete did the joke come in? -Apart from this, however, the eifect of thp sending of the telegram .was, in my opinion, to .stop, the plaintiff from having a fair show with their bidders, thus putting'him. at a disadvantage, and favouring • the ■ defendants amongst. other bidders., I. think, the plaintiff is'entitled to damages." 1 Judgment was for the plaintiff for the amount claimed,, with costs. ■ ..•••

I.OWEK HUTT HALL. - ' Fleming Boss, accountant,' Wellington, proceeding against James 'Duggan ' and Harry V". Westbury, cycle - mechanics, Lower Hutt, for JG32 17s. • 6d.; .£3O of the amount was for ten weeks''.rental of the Lower Hutt Drill Hall, and the balance was for 23 chairs, broken and damaged, at 2s. Gd. each.' - ' ■ Mr. E. C. Levvey.represented the plaintiff, and Mr. T. F. Martin the defendants.' After evidence had been heard, decision was reserved till to-morrow. '' UNDEFENDED CASES. « , In the following oases judgment was entered for the plaintiffs-,by default:— Robert Martin, Ltd.,'v.' Syl'vanus'Budge, 15s. 9d.; costs iEI" 18s. Gdi"; Hermann Hcimann v. J. Graham, 10s.'6(1.,'"costs 6s. r 'W.'O. Wilkinson v: H. Sargent, iei Is.' 3d.; costs Bs.; Albert Henry Eaton"v., Pereival Archer, 155., costs 55.; W. H. Trengrove' v; Victor - Scoullar,' costs' 65.; Public,. Will' -of : John 'Charics..'Will^ihsoil). , y.' jbhn. Beaifon, lis.', '-costs"il2s.^'.Official ''Assignee..(entire 1 property of Ti ~T. C.'Giirr, trading as J, A. Smyth and Co.) v. J.' .S. Boultoh, «£i Bs. 8d„ costs 15s.Sutherland arid Ennkine v. Harold. Mullins, M os. ,Gd:;' costs 10s.; George Doughty aud C'o.' y. Thomas T'ait, .437 14s. .10d.,. costs iC2 ,lls.; Joseph' T. ' lewis v. Henry G. M'Donald,:>Clj 10s., costs iEI 3s. Gd.; Kodak (Australasia),, Ltd. v. Bromley Hill, lis. 2d., costs „£l. 35." Gd.; H. Kahn (trading as Le Marclle) v. Vera M'Cormj'ck, ,13s.;.8(l.,'costs 55.; J. S.. Matthews v. S. Trass, -3U ! 10s., costs lis.; D. Lloyd 'Clay y. : ,George Carr, i's, costs iil os. 6d.; Albert ..Kellaway v. Joseph Harlen, £i, ,15s.- Sd., costs . i3s.; Waipa Railways and' Collieries, L'al., : -v. John' C. S. Panton, 415, costs J:1 Ids., .63.,; same, v. Frank Howie Bennett, ifioO, costs .£3 35.; Wellington Traders' Agency : v. P. G. Hume, J!l2 75., costs ss : ; Arthur .James. Jiicka. v. Norman . Watson, £2 ,1.95,.. lid., .costs- lOsij Francis-Edward Griffln y. James Ross Is.,Gd.,:'costs. ss. Gd.;. James Smith, .Ltd., James X' Stevenson, £1 75.,1 d;, .costs l los, ;:<iiid 1!G. Dunn .v.. John Campbell,' Creah, i.'3o. 4s. 3d., costs Jj2 lis.

.. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. V, J. Winter-was ordered to .pay Wollerman and- Co. '£i in instalments of 10s. per month. 1 1 ■ "' BREACHES OF AWARDS.' : C. H. Harris and' Co., Adelaide Road, Wellington, were fined JJI for having employed an apprentice for more than three months nnd one week without - notifying the Inspector of Awards of tho fact. Daniel Tonkin,, restaurant-keeper, Wellington, was fiucd .01' for having paid a kitchen hand ill 2s. Gd. per week instead of £1 ss. per week. ' "EXTRAORDINARY!" (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, . S.M.) Benjamin Semeloff, dealer, Wellington, sued A. T. Vickers, agent, -Taihape, respecting certain' goods which were said to have been delivered jn 1905. ' Plaintiff claimed for the return of the goods or for their value,' Xl 6; for .tlO a.s damages for wrongful, detention of such of tho goods as were not sold; and interest at the rate of eight per'cent, on all moneys received by the defendant in.respect of the goods which were sold. .Mr. T. C.' A. Hislop 'appeared for the plaintiff, arid Mr. J. J. M'Grath for the defendant. .. . Defendant paid £2 9s. into court, and judgment was given for plaintiff for that amount. 11l giving judgment, his Worship said that plaintiff had acted very carelessly, having kept no record of the transaction and mado no claim in jbout seven years. This his Worship characterised as "a most extraordinary proceeding" on the part of a man who called himself a _man of business. The onus was on plaintiff to prove the claim, and plaintiff had not discharged that onus. POLICE CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Ri/ldell, S.M.) Jolin M'Conville was sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment on charges of having resisted arrest and used objectionable language. ' . Charles Fowler was fined 103. for inebriety.