MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2875, 13 September 1916, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

AN UNPROVOKED ASSAULT

Jlr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., prwided at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. A plea of guilty was entered by Thomas lteid, alias Smith, alias Olson, to a charge of James Uriscoll, the proprietor of a shooting gallery m Willis Hu'eet on Monday evening. Inspector Hendrey explained that the assault was unprovoked and violent.. A fine of £i was imposed, half the amount to go to Driscoll. Qeorgi* Williams , was charged with being a rogue and a vagabond, iu that he had msitfficieut visible means of support, and was, on his own application, remanded to Friday. INSOBRIETY. Eight men and ono womau appeared to answer charges of insobriety. This happened to bo a larger number than usual, which led the Magistrate to remark that tho anti-"shouting" regulations did not appear to have Much effect, to whiqh Inspector Hendrey replied: "I think it has somewhat." Six of those charged being first offenders were lenilmtlv dealt with. Con Sullivan, with had only arrived in towji the day before, was lined 10s., in default 48 hours' .imprisonment. George Daniel Connell and John William Davis, the former with one and the latter with two previous uDUvictions, were eaclt fined 205., in default three days' imprisonment. JUVENILE COURT. Mr. D. G. A.. Cooper, S.M., presided in the Juvenile Gpurt.. A youtn charged I ivith tho theft of 18s. in money and. a purse valued at Is. 6d., was ordered to be sent to the Wereroa Institution, and a maintenance order was made against the father of the hoy.. Another lad, who was eonvioted of the theft of 705.. 9d., was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. The Magistrate warned tho acouied that if ho 'came beforo the Court he would he severely punished. Two boys, aged nine and ten respectively, were convicted of stealing a bicycle each, and discharged. The lads wero ordered to report once k mimth to the Probation Officer. CIVIL CASES. Mr. W. G. lliddell, S.M., heard the civil actions. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following undefended civil eases: — , F. J. Pinny v. E. H. Eaton, £7 135., costs 23s 6d.; Empire Coach und Motor Factory v. G. H. Hunt, £1 18s. 10(1., costs 13s. pjack Jacobus v. J. Bergerson, £5 ]os., costs 225.; James Itussell v. Albert G. Violich, £5.45. 10d., costs 125.; Mullis and Lemberg v. 11. T. Barnes, 17s. Id., costs 3s. ;• To Aro Furnishing Co. v. W. 11. Wakefield, £1 3s. od., costß 135.; N.Z. Dairyman Co. v. Euriltura Artificial Limb Co., £4 16s. Gd., costs 10s.; Gordon and Gotch, Ltd., v. G. Dominick, 17s. 6d., costs 55.; same v. Albert Lctliaby, costs only Bs.; sarao v. John Lorigan, £2 125., costs 10s.; same v. A. Leslie Young, £118s. 9d;, costs 55.; "N.Z. Truth" v. B. Rico, £5, costs 55.; Laorv find Co, Ltd., v. Georgo England, £15 175., costs IBs. 6d.; Gordon and Gotch v. J. O'Donnell, £4 155., costs 10s. DEFENDED CASE. ■Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., was engaged for a considerable time in hearing the case of Frank Fonby v. David M'Crca, a claim for £12 Bs. Bd., alleged to be tho balanco dne on a number' of bedsteads supplied by plaintiff to. defendant, who alloged they woio not up to sample. Mr. T. Ncavo appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. .E. C. Levvy for defendant. After hearing tho cvideneo tlie Magistrate reserved his decision until to-morrow morning, and in tho meanwhile undertook to see tho goods.

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. A RESERVED DECISION. Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., delivered his reserved judgment in the case in which John Robert George Stansell, laud agent, Shannon, proceeded against Thomas Henry Ambrose Tremewan to recovcr £185, alleged to bo due as commission on the sale of the defendant's interest in a Nativo loase at Shannon to Messrs. Barber Bros., .it £3700, c> mmission being computed at 5 per cent, on the whole amount. In ilia judgment, Mr. Riddell, after referring to the negotiations and the conclusion of tho 6ale, said: "In my opinion plaintiff has established his claim to commission unless precluded by Section 13 of the Land Agent Act, 1912. That section enacts,that: A land agent shall not be entitled to sue for or recover, any commission, reward, or remuneration for' or in respect of the salo or other disposition of land or of wi.v ;n----tercst in land, made or effected after the coming into operation, of this unless (a) he is the holder of a license under tho Act; (b) his engagement or appointment to act as agent in respect of such sale or disposition is in writing signed by the person to be charged with such commission, reward, or remuneration. The only document in writing in which tho names of plaintiff «iid defendant appear is the agreement of sale, and plaintiff's counsel argues that it is sufficient evidence. of plaintiff's appointment as defendant's agent to comply with Section 13. In Thomas v. Eyres, Mr. Justice Cooper says: "Under Section 13 of tho Land Agents Act the written agreement or appointment to act as ng«nt is the foundation of the riglit of the agent to recover his commission. Without such an instrument he has no cause of action. It is not a.' collateral matter. It is the primary essential condition of his right of action." Upon tho authority of that decision I think plaintiff Iras failed to prove compliance with Section 13, and h.e cannot succced. Plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs £9 ss.

At the hparing Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. T. Young for defendant.