THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 5968, 28 April 1882, Page 2

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) S. Mewhinny v. M. English.—Claim, L3l4s, on a judgment summons. There was no appearance on behalf of the defendant. ‘-His Worship made an order for the payment of the amount by weekly instalments of 5s first payment to be made on Monday next, in default seven days’ impmonment. Same v. same.—Claim L 3 18s. The defendant was ordered to satisfy the claim by instalments of 5a per week, commencing on Monday, August 7 next, in default four days’ imprisonment.

J. Gray v. F. H; Asbury.—Claim L 6. The defendant did not appear, and judgment was accordingly entered for the amount claimed, with costs. Same v, W. Bum. —Claim L 6, value of a chain sold to defendant. Mr Fitchett appeared for the defendant, who stated that he purchased the chain on the understanding that it was not to be paid for until some time afterwards, but as the plaintiff seemed disinclined to give him credit he returned the chain, which plaintiff accepted.—Judgment was given for defendant, A. M‘Gregor v. J. D. Hutton.—Claim, L 36 ss, for commission—Ll2 10s on the leasing of the St. Kilda Hotel, and L 23 15s on the stock and furniture taken at valuation. Mr Macdonald appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Stout for the defendant.—The plaintiff deposed that on the 6th March the defendant authorised him to lease his hotel for five years, at L 5 per week; stock and furniture to be taken at valuation; valuators to be mutually chosen. On the 10th of the same month witness entered into negotiations with one Kerr, and on the 17th he went out to St. Kilda with Mr Eversleigh. There they met Mr Kerr, who was shown oyer defendant’s hotel. He completed arrangements, and told the defendant that Kerr had agreed to take the place on the terms stated. Defendant replied that he was perfectly satisfied. On the 25th of the same month the agreement produced was made between Kerr and witness in the presence of Mr Mackerras; Kerr giving him a deposit for L2O. Kerr requested witness to ask when he could get possession. He went out to the hotel and saw Hutton. Hutton hesitated, stating that he did not know when he could give possession, as the place had been put under offer to another party. Witness complained of the way he had been treated, whereupon Hutton said “Very well, Mao, you can have it. Meet me on Monday.” On the 27th he received a letter from Hutton stating that as he (witness) had not kept hie appointment for that morning the property had been disposed of to another party. Fbe matter was then placed in the hands of bis solicitor. Cross-examined : Kerr never £ot possession of the house. Witness had beard that the lease had since been sold to Mr John Moloney. No valuation was made in pursuance of the agreement entered into. He did hot remember Hutton saying that he required a deposit for LIOO from the incoming tenant. The deposit was given by Kerr at his own request. His charge on the sale was 5 per cent., the usual amount, —J. M. Kerr stated that he made an appointment to meet the last witness.

at the St. Hilda Hotel. He looked over the place, and told M‘Gregor that he would take it. After he had signed the agreement with M'Gregor he heard that another tenant had been accepted for the place, and went out to see Hutton. The latter said that he had sold the place, and that M'Grogor had no authority for him to sell. He further said that M‘Gregor had something in his pocketbook written in pencil, but that it was not legal. Witness then stated that if M‘Gregor had sold the place illegally he would forfeit his claim, and asked Hutton to write to M'Gregor making an appointment.—H. A, Eversleigh and J.' T. Mackerras also gave evidence.—W. S. Douglas stated chat 5 per cent, was the usual charge for a sale of personal estate up to LSOO, also for a lease under seven years. Cross-examined: If ho let a house subject to valuation for fittings he would not get the commission for the valuation unless he made it.—J. T. Roberts stated that the commission on the sale of personal property was 5 per cent, up to 1250; beyond that 2J. The sale on the house would be 5 per cent, up to seven years’ lease.— Mr Stout submitted that in the face of Mr Douglas’s evidence the second part of the claim must fail. The only item was, therefore, as to the lease of the hotel. Hutton told M'Gregor that the place was not to be let without reference to him, and if this were so the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover,—The defendant stated that he had been “ caught on the hop” in signing the authority to M'Gregor to sell, and told the plaintiff so when he met him a few days afterwards. He also told plaintiff that he must not close with any tenant without letting him know, and that he must not accept less than LIOO deposit. It was after this that Herr was introduced and looked over the place. —Sis Worship found for the plaintiff on the first item (Ll2 10s) with costs, and for the defendant on the second.

Maxwell v. Guthrie. — His Worship gave judgment herein as follows:—“ This Is a claim by the General Manager of the New Zealand Railways for wharfage on goods shipped from certain lighters to the ship Pizarro, while lying at the Port Chalmers railway wharf. The defendant is admitted to be agent for the owners of the lighters, and that they are under his sole management; and if the masters of the lighters are, he also is liable. The objections to the claim are: (1) That the Legislature intend the charge for wharfage shall be for the use of the wharf; that it is admitted the goods were never on the wharf, but transhipped from the lighter to the ship; and that therefore, the wharf not having been used, nothing is due in respect of the goods, (2) That if wharfage is payable in respect of the goods it is not payable by the defendant, who is merely the carrier of the goods and has no property in them. In respect to the first point, the Public Works Act, 1876, as amended by the Public Works Act, 1880, section 2, provides for fixing the rate of wharfage to be charged on all goods loaded or unloaded from or into lighters into or from ships lying at any wharf, pier, or jetty in connection with » railway. There Is nothing ambiguous in this language, and it is clear it provides for a charge upon goods without the goods going on to the wharf, and the byelaw and * Gazette ’ notice keep within the power under which they are framed. It is sufficient that the ship into or out of which the goods are moved is alongside of a railway wharf. Upon the second objection, I can see no reason for charging the defendant. The impost is on the goods. > Defendant simply carries the goods to the ship’s side. The placing of goods into the ship is what makes the impost chargeable, and this is not the act of the defendant, nor is it done at his request or for his benefit; but I infer it must be done at the request and by arrangement with the owner or shipper of the goods. So long as the goods remain in the lighter wharfarge is not payable, but the liablity accrues after the goods are out of defendant’s control. It is not said the defendant is agent of the shipper to ship the goods, and I have not that phase of the case to deal with. It would no doubt be a convenient way of collecting the revenue to receive it from the lighters; but I see no authority upon which it can be enforced. Judgment for defendant, with costs 31s 6d.”