MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 2 October 1924, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

RESERVED DECISIONS DELIVERED. for the plaintiff in the case or A. Hatriek and Go., Ltd., y. H. H. .Model-, and judgment, tor the defendant m the ease of H. C. Fake v. Mary Morgan, was delivered by Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., at the Hawt-ra Court today. • in the first mentioned case the inagist'.are held that the.-evidence fell short of establishing as a fact that Moller was working for Hatriek and Co., and therefore had to he remunerated by them. It* had not been shown that at any time the relationship between Hatriek and Co. and Blake and Sons had been disrupted, Hatriek and Co having recognised Blake and Sons as their agent all the way through. There was. a time, when Moller was employed oy 11 lane and Sons, and it had not been proved that that relationship had ever terminated. The magistrate was quite satisfied that arrangements ma’de whereby payments were made direct to •Hatriek and Co. were effected for the purpose of reducing Blake and Sons’ debt. Moller had failed to satisfy the court that there was even an implied contract entitling him to recover commission from the plaintiff company. If he had raised the Question of a guarantee of commission 'by Hatriek and Co. .at the-time when lie was selling the cars there was no doubt he would have got it, but lie had not done that. it \vas quite clear that the £l6O that Moller collected from Warren was money paid over to rebate three bills of exchange held by Hatriek and Co., and was therefore Hatriek and Co.’s 'money. J he plaintiff company was therefore entitled to judgment on the claim and counter-claim for the full amount, namely £7O, with costs £l4. Defendant was credited with ‘£l 0s 6d, on the change of venu. Mi' O’Dea conducted the case lor the plaintiff company and Mr Matthews for the defendant Moller. Ihe second case was one in which Fake claimed for certain brick work done on Mary Morgan’s proper! v. The defendant contended that the account should have been charged to A. C. J. Welsh, and pointed out that Fake had put a lien on-'her land for the amount of the debt (£l7). Defendant, while denying that she was legally responsible for the debtj was prepared to' pay it, but she was not prepared to g'of to the expense of removing the ben which had been registered against her land. Mr O’Dea claimed that the plaintiff could not succeed ,qu his claim on the lien fc-.r two reasons: (1) That plaintiff had not adopted the proper procedure as set out in the rules under the Wages Protection Act.. (2) That the notice of lien was defective 'in that it mentioned that the lien was registered on defendant’s “property” without specifying what the property was. ’ - The magistrate went very fully into the question submitted, and gave a written judgment, which counsel on both sides asked him to report in the “Law Reports” as being of interest on a novel point. The magistrate held that although proceedings were not strictly in order, he could do substantial justice by accepting them as sufficient. Ho, however, held that the second objection was fatal in that. the.. Act specifically required all land_ against which the lien was registered to. be dseribed with particular ity. Describing a person’s land as yomvproperty’’ was not sufficient, particularly if the person had more properties t-nan one. He- held the objection fatal, and judgment was given for the ctefendant with costs. He also ordered tlie lien to he removed at the cost of the plaintiff Fake. When judgment ha.d been delivered. Mr Q Dea, for defendant, stated that he had received a letter from H. de labeacord, or A. G. .J. Welsh, as he was correctly named, stating that the debt was his, that Mrs Morgan was not hable, and further, that lie would pay Fake as scon as he came out of prison. “Will you be satisfied with that?” asked Mr O’Dea of Mr Taylor. “No, I will not,” replied’ Mr Taylor. ‘lf Mrs Morgan will not pay within 24 • hours a further summons will he issued.”.