MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21170, 2 August 1932, Page 10

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, AUGUST 2. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Judgment by default for plaintiff (with costs) was given in the following cases:—Thomas Bennett v. Walter Anderson, £1 7s 9d, goods supplied; Mowat Bros. v. Alexander Brown (Gore), £l6 Is,, goods supplied; H. 11. Parker v, H. J. Turnbull (Mosgiel), £1 ss, work done; W. Stevenson v. A. W Fort, £4, rent due; John Chambers and Son v. Henry W. Stewart (Outrara), £6 2s 4d, goods supplied; Frederick Hunt v. Transil Manufacturing Company, £2 Bs, deposit paid; J. E. and Co. v. Charles P. Han ex (Cambrians), £lO 8s 3d, goods supplied. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. John A. Sparrow proceeded against Donald Jones, who was ordered to pay £9 8s 3d forthwith, in default ten days imprisonment. Frank Martin was ordered to pay .William James Wilcox £lB 17s 6d forthwith, in default three weeks’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended so long as defendant pays 15s per week. DISPUTE OVER WARDROBE. John William Adams (Timaru) proceeded against Louis William Walker on a claim for £5 for a wardrobe which plaintiff claimed had been left in _ a house at Massey avenue, St. Clair, when the house was sold. Counsel for plaintiff stated that in August, 1930, the defendant purchased through Park, Reynolds a house from plaintiff. There was left in the house a wardrobe which was not affixed to the house in any way, and which had previously been put up for auction when a clearing sale was held in the house, but had been passed in. Some time after the sale had been completed and defendant had entered into possession plaintiff made inquiries as to the disposal of the wardrobe, and it was found it was in the possession of the defendant. The agent thereupon wrote to the defendant, asking him either to i purchase the wardrobe or to return it. (Shortly after the defendant called at -the office of Park, Reynolds and informed them that he had disposed of ,the wardrobe by giving it away to a friend. Counsel proceeded to quote "authorities in support of his contention that such an action was the conversion of a chattel.

Evidence was given in support of plaintiff’s case by John Geerin, a director of the firm of Park, Reynolds. Counsel for the defendant stated the defence was that the defendant bought, and plaintiff’s agent sold, the wardrobe to go with the house. Evidence was given by defendant and John Honour (agent for Park, Reynolds). The Magistrate said the defendant was not concerned with any secret instructions or any instructions at all given to Park, Reynolds. All he could deal with was what Park, Reynolds’ agent said,to him. The agent was acting within the apparent scope of his authority, and defendant bought on those representations. _ Defendant was therefore entitled to judgment, which was given, with costs (£2 10s).