MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 55, 17 February 1912, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

HASTINGS. (Ikfure Mr. S. E. M. (. arthy. S.M.) THIS DAY. ‘ SCARCELY EVER S'.H.EIL” Wiliam Diack. jtmr.. < barged wth breaches of ms prohibition order on January £2:>d. Jauuaiy 26th. an t February 3rd <three charges) pleaded guilty. The casts were adjourned from yesterday to allow Hl; Worship to ascertain if tr.- ie wa > room for accused at the Rotor, a Incur. Honie. Sergeant Hogr.n described Black as a scourge to the town. His Worship said from the i(kp/T it appeared that accused. although. prohibited. v.-.s scatcely cver .-ob. r. and made a practite cf going lounJ th-.> t'lvn cadging drink. He would be e mmitterd to the Rotorua Inebriates’ Home for a term of two years. SALE OF MOTOR CAR. William Farrelly. cycle and motor agent, sued Inglis Eros., of Wellington, for the sum of £l3, commission alleged to he due on the sale of a motor ear. Air. Dolan rg peart d for plaintiff i and Mr. Thompson (rr-pse-f nting; Kennedy. Lu--k ami Morhng) for de- ; lennant. j PiamtiJ s case, as stated i»y Mr. I Dolan. was that the defendants' wro: c t <; one of Fairelly s employ* es, ; a Mr Farmery, with reference to he I sale of new and second hand motor i cars, on which they offered to ~! J ow ! a commission o' in per cent. rclly got hi i< >ch with Dr. ..lory. • wno was hx iKing of purchasing a I Hc-o car. and .succeeded in pursued-1 ing him to huv a Stewart car ,■< n j Messrs Imrli« Eros. Plnl.-.il:’ v,a.,! responsible for introducing th? par- | chaser and the sale of the car. The ' contended that they had I arranged a < otnmis.- ion with Mr. j' Farrelly. s nr.. but this was denied, i 1 The upshot wa> that Inglis Bros, al j< lowed Farrelly a commission of £lO I 1 on a sale of a ear for £‘46o. Mr. I Dolan contended that even if there I ‘ was no proof cf specific contract, the j 1 plaintiff was entithd to an amount 1 considered reao.na: le by the Court. 1

In his evidence plaintiff stati.il that he had hat! bti-nness transaction with defendants for s:x years, involving large sums cf money. Mr. S_vn.cs, head traveller for Inglis Bn s., mr.d«> arrangements with him to allow ten per cent cfanmi i- j.i t n the sale of the car to Dr. Stor- v.

Dr. Storey gave evidence that catalogues of Stewart cans were first shown to him By Mr Inglis. Did not ' remember any particcd-.tr conversation with Farmery. Farrelly. s *nr., had told him that Inglis Bros. v.< ;■< a firm who could Be relied on. On "■is recommendation he trusted the firm. He was introdm.-fd to Mr. Inglis by Farreily. / Ernest Farmery, evil.* engineer, said he had be.-n employed for three years by Farreily. He received a letter from Inglis Bros, offering to allow him i'J pt r cent commission on the sale of niGt<-r care for which they were agents. D” Storey spoke to him about various cars and he show- i td him a eatah.gi:? of Stewart cars. I The price was io per cent I comnr’ssion. Both Dr. Storey and himself wrote to Ingtis Bros. Saw Inglis the nay the car was sold. Inglis said he di-i not want to pay two commissions. IL- ak< d witness to let him kiii.w how Farrelly treated him. He understood the commission v. as to be paiil to Farrelly. To Mr. Thompson : A= witness had spoken to Dr. Storey in Farrelly's shop he did not expert that he (witness) would rtciise the commission. For the tiefence, Mr. Thompson stated that th? first connection with regard to ti.e sale of the car was between Mr. Ingli- a*'d J. Farrell c. senr.. whom Inglis had deal: with as J. H. Farrelly. The latter had on one occasion called to see the defendants in Wellington to prove his stability as a financial man, and up to this morning defendants always considered th»-y w-~re dealing wuh "J. 11. Farrelly.” All cheques teceived by the firm were signed “John Farrelly.” Regarding the sale of ti.e «-ar to Dr. Story , arrangements were made only with Farrelly, senr. Trie ear was indented at cut price, and if a commission of £‘.3 had Been allowed to Farrelly he would be getting more than the principal. Farrelly, si nr., agreed to accept £u.» for introducing Dr. Storey. a:.d the offer was confirmed by a letter from the firm. No reply was received and the firm heard nothing fv.rtht r until one <>f their travellers returned front Hastings and said that W. Farrelly was claiming a commi.-siott. All the Farrell;. - had done v.a; to recommend th * firm and timy had not acted aagents.

R. W. Jmifs gave evidence that as a sub-ag« nt lie had nr. er been ailow<d ni.ee ti:aii ir.e per cent on the tale cf a car. There was no special rate of commis-ion in the m.-t.-.r trade. A c.,mmi"ion as high ns 15 per cent was paid < n .Ami rienn c".!". Rcbirtt'.l (videi.ee vas giv. n by John Farrelly to the effect that n<> arrangement was made by him to ac?;;_t £!>..> !-.-r int rudi'.cti.g Dr. btorey. Hii Worship I e'-.i that the r.rrargement T.nd Keen made with Farie”y. senr.. to aee.pt £'-•> for introducing Dr. St-'riy. Judgment v. 1r.inn for tL> ana.ant v. it:; o-ts £ 1 CLAIM FOP. OVERTIME. Daniel Bowen sued (. nrem E.-ore. for £l4 12 (i. nib .-..! to bp due fur overtime v.. v. idle in the <ief ndant's vmpl. y ns a cook. Pi ii.i tiff stated that bo was . :nj.!. ■•. t d ’o work I' l h<>urs a d ’.y at £2 pt-r we k. Tie r.."s claiming overtime for 75 days at - ps. - hour and 15 .lays-.: 4 6. Mr. D lan !•■’• plaintiff and Mr. Th om o so n f e r < f ■ f. ■ r. 1 1 a n t. Defendant iq hi. evidence said r • had set rid ~f plaint iff bee-.;--■ }/r; w.-rk v..'= i ns • Afu-r henm-g v. idem on L .th Hi’ Wc:d:lp give judgment (or £io with coi-ts £4 i» d. I

NAPIER. (Before Mr. J. P. Thomson. J.P.) THIS DAY. A first offender f>>r insubi irty. who ■ lid in.t appt a;-, was convicted and fined It- -. in tie-fault -IS hours imprisonment. David Ellis w:m charge<l v.ith defrauding Robert Lamb Pt te-rson and Ht nry A.lbcrt Mtis-tn.-in by >-cEing chattels comprised in a security ithout ti.e content of Patterson and M-i-'.man. ?,[;■. Lu-k appeared for the prosecution and asked, in view of tb.e fact J-.at the accused was brought from Auckland la r =t night, lie should Le r.-.-uardril until Tue'-ilay nt xt.

Mr Dunn appeared for the accused am! con-cnted to the adjournment. B-il was allow: d h:m-e!f in £•?' imi t."-o si. ri ti< < £25 .