Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., S.M.) Postlethwaite and another v. the Sew Hoy Big Beach Gold Mining Company.—Claim, £25 ss, for goods delivered.' Mr Wood, house appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Sim for the defendant company. In this previously-heard case His Worship gave judgment as fallows j The first question Is whether. Mr M'Qeorge and Mr Payne had implied authority to order the goods, the price -of which is now. sued for, on behalf of the defendant company. The resolution of directors of December 14, 1898, authorised Messrs Gore and Leo to seo Mr M'Qeorge ns to the best scheme and arrange to carry the workout. The evidence shows that subsequently these gentlemen met. that Mr M'Qeorge invited tenders *“8 machinery and works required, that the plaintiffs sent a written tender addressed to Messrs M George and Payne, that this tender was placed before the directors on the 13th January, that Mr M'Qeorge attended the meeting, and the minute book shows that it was resolved that the New Zealand Engineering and Electrical Company s tender for £329 15s be accepted, and the alterations be made on No. 3 dredge. On the same date the plaintiffs received a letter from Mr M George, in which he wrote; “ I have been instructed to accept your tender,” etc. Mr Stevenson says that the plaintiffs had no communication with the directors on the matter. The whole transaction, therefore, a comparatively large order, was conducted on defendant's behalf by Mr M George, and I think from that, and the apparent necessity there is that orders for engineering work must be conveyed through an engineer, justified the plaintiffs in considering that Mr M George had also authority to bind the company respecting other requirements and details subordinate to the principal work. These remarks apply to the first item of. the Claim ordered uy Mr M'George. The other items were ordered by Mr Payne, who, I presume, acted in place of his then or former partner, Mr M'George. I can see nothing in the evidence to bind the company in respect to Mr Payne. He was never the agent of the company, or placed by the company in a position to appear, to be so. The next point in the case, and this applies to, all the items, is that the defendant, company has possession of the goods. Delivery' was taken at the Dunedin railway station, and the goods carried to the company’s claim at the Shotover, where they now are, some fitted to other machinery and some loose. It seems to me immaterial whether the directors knew that the goods were supplied without their authority or were led to believe they formed part of original contract or not at the time the tinie they removed them. They became acquainted with the facts early in June, but they still retain-the foods and have never offered to return them, and think that upon this ground they are liable to pay. As to the prices, it seems to me that the first item is too high by, say, £3. Judgment for plaintiffs for £22 Ss, with costs of court, witnesses’ expenses (21s), professional costs (£2l2s).

Judgment was given for the plaintiffs, with costs, in the following cases:—Thomson, Bridger, and Co. (Mr Moore) v. D. A. M*Kay, claim £8 18s, for goods supplied; Richard Sampson (the Hon. J. MacGregor) v. Thomas Blue, claim £1 ss, for board and lodging; same v. James Black, claim £1 14s, for board and lodging. John Hughes v, James Gibson.—Claim, £53 10s, as damages for the value of a horse and harness. Mr Fraser appeared for plaintiff and Mr Woodhonse for defendant.— Plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs (£3 13s 6J). Francis Meenan v. George Smith.—Claim, £lO 3s lid, for goods sold and delivered. Mr Gallaway appeared for plaintiff, and Mr I). Stewart (of Balclutha) for the defendant. —After evidence the case was adjourned for a week.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS—TO-DAY., Issue 10428, 24 September 1897

Word Count

THE COURTS—TO-DAY. Issue 10428, 24 September 1897

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.