THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 10394, 16 August 1897, Page 2

THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

MAGISTRATE'S COUET.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., S.M.)

Mutual Agency Company v. Joseph Gatfield.—Claim, £6 8s 4d, for pelts supplied. —Mr Sinclair for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given for amount claimed, with costs (£1 7s Od).

D. M. Spedding v. Rudolph Charles Miller (of Invercargill).—Claim, £l4, on the sale of sewing machines. Mr Sim appeared for plaintiff, and Mr W. C. MacGregor (for Mr Macalister) for defendant. —ln this previously-heard case judgment was given as follows: —The correspondence between the parties certainly leads to the conclusion that defendant was to give his promissory note for the price of the machines. On October G, 1896, defendant wrote: " Your letter with p.n. and machines to hand. As regards the p.n., you forgot to put in if the machines were soid 28th January, 1897. If you do not like to put it in the promissory note please give me a letter to the effect." Plaintiff replied on October 12: "As regards the promissory note we forwarded for your acceptance we agreed with you to extend the payment for any machine that you may have unsold when "the promissory note falls due, and now give you this written assurance." Defendant neither replied to this letter nor did he send the promissory note, and it is only after action was brought that he says : "I do not admit that I should have given a promissory note." It is a misfortune that pliintifPs letter of October 12 was not more definite as to for what time payment for any machine that was unsold when the note matured was to be extended. Plaintiff has sworn ib was three months, which would expire at the end of April last, and if there was no express agreement as to time that would be a reasonable interpretation of what the parties probably intended. As to the offer to accept the goods back, I think that ia explainable by the evident desire of the plaintiff to wind up an unsatisfactory transaction. Judgment for plaintiff for £l4, with costs (425).