Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT., Issue 8054, 2 November 1889
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
Friday, November 1, (BeforeE. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) M'Goun and others v. B. C. Calverley.— Claim, L3l 15s, interest due. Mr E. Cook for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given by default. M. M. Jones v. \V. A. Young.—Claim, L 25 83, commission on the sale of the Palace cars. Mr Sim for plaintiff; Mr Calvert for defendant.—John Maitland Jones, husband of the plaintiff, said that on September 3 he had a conversation with defendant, and he was authorised to interview the Tramway Company regarding the sale of eight Palace cars. A memorandum was signed by defendant in connection with the sale. After that conversation he communicated with the Tramway Cojr.pany, and a reply that was received from them was handed to Mr Young—at least, witness could not produce it, and defendant must therefore have it in his possession. On September 24 defendant and witness met a committee of the directors of the Tramway Company. After conferring with Mr Sinclair and defendant regarding the cost of altering the wheels of the cars, witness met Mr Williams (manager of the Tramway Company). To Mr Calvert: The cars were not sold by public auction. He understood that he was dealing with Mr Young, jun., and not with Mr Young, sen. The transactions were carried on by defendant, and witness thought that the son was not acting as agent for his father, but on his own responsibility. The father introduced witness to his son, and said to witness that he (meaning his son) had brought his cars from Wellington to here. Several times Mr Young, sen., intimated to witness that the cars belonged to his son, and not to himself. Witness was an undischarged bankrupt, his wife carrying on the business. The reasons that Mrs Jones's name appeared in the plaint were unknown to witness; it was not because he knew that if he sued in his own name the Official Assignee might take the money. In his transactions with Mr Young Mrs Jones did not take any part —witness carried on all the transactions himself.—Evidence as to the part plaintiff took in the negotiations for the sale of the Palace cars was given by Mr Williams. The concluding negotiations were made between the Tramway Company and Messrs Wright, Stephenson, and Co.—Mr Calvert said that as defendant was away from town, and could not be communicated with, he (counsel) hardly knew what course to pursue. His Worship had said that the absence of defendant was not sufficient excuse for an adjournment, else he (Mr Calvert) would not have gone on with the case to-day. The present plaintiff was not the person who should have sued ; Air Jones should have been plaintiff. The Official Assignee would be entitled to the money if Mr Jones sued in his own name.— His Worship held that plaintiff was entitled to sufficient moneys to sustain himself.—Mr Calvert said that the present was the case where the Official Assignee'sfeeswere evaded. The labor was the result of the skill and brain power of Mr Jones, and not of Mrs Jones.— His Worship said that if Mrs Jones obtained an order for moneys in the Court, the Official Assignee could not recover on behalf of the claims against Jone?.—Mr Calvert submitted that the actual sale was carried out by Messrs Wright, Stephenson, and Co., not through the instrumentation of plaintiff. A distinct offer was made by the tramway company for the purchase of the cars after the negotiations -with. -wHich plaintiff -was connected had terminated, so that practically the sale had not been arranged by the instrumentality of Mrs Jones. His Worship, after a brief retirement, said that there were numerous cases where the parties who had been ooncerned in the negotiations for the sale, but had not taken any part in arranging the actual sale, had been entitled to receive commission. He thought from the evidence that plaintiff was entitled to receive commission, which was not of an excessive nature. Judgment for plaintiff for L 25, and oosts. J. Brown v. G. W. Clarko.—Claim, L2O Bs, on a dishonored promissory note.—Mr Calvert appeared for plaintiff, who said that defendant had come into his office, and said he would confess judgment.—Judgment for L2O, and costs. J. M'Lean v. J. Grey.—Claim, Lll 2s Bd, for goods supplied. Mr Gallaway appeared for plaintiff; Mr D. D. Macdonald for defendant.—lt appeared that defendant admitted that the goods had been supplied, but denied that be was liable, as he had given plaintiff notice not to supply his wife (who had, it appeared, ordered the goods) with goods unless they were paid for in cash. His wifo had the management of the house, and was allowed to book goods at another tradesman's; but &he was supplied with money, and was not allowed to obtain goods on credit.—Witnesses were called to prove that plaintiff had mentioned the faot that he had received instructions from defendant not to supply Mrs Grey with goods which were booked.—Defendant's wife said that her husband was quite unaware that she was obtaining the goods—she burned tho bills directly she got them. Several people residing near witness were the cause of her getting into difficulties. She was frightened to tell her husband that she was getting these goods, especially towards the latter end. She never cxy>rcted lior husband to pay for them she thought she would be able to pay the accounts, with the assistance of the neighbors.—His Worship said that as notice not to supply goods had been forwarded to plaintiff be would be nonsuited. No costs would be allowed Upon Mr Macgregor demurring, His Worship said : " Not one man in fifty would have allowed his wife to come into Court and disgrace him as he (defendant) has allowed. It is not, in my opinion, a case where costs should be allowed."
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT., Issue 8054, 2 November 1889
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Print, save, zoom in and more.