MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 118, 18 April 1934, Page 12

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CIVIL ACTION. Judgment for plaintiff was delivered in the Magistrate’s Court, yesterday, by Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., in a case m which TV. A. Hurst, contractor, of Rongotea, proceeded against J. R. TVilson, agent, of F’ea.therstozt Street, Palmerston North. The amount of the judgment was £24 4s 6d and the costs totalled £lO 4s. Mr A. M. Ongley apE eared for plaintiff and Mr J. Graam (Feilding) for defendant. The statement of claim alleged that about April, 1933, defendant by representing to plaintiff that certain humidisers would reduce benzine consumption in cars and lorries by a quarter, plaintiff had purchased from Palmerstons, Ltd., humidisers for the sum of £34 4s. The claim alleged that the machines did not fulfill the representations and plaintiff claimed £34 4s. The case had been adjourned to enable further evidence to be called for the defence and on its conclusion counsel for defendant commenced his address. The Magistrate interposed to say that he intended to give judgment on the equity and good conscience clause. He would, in giving his decision, consider the whole of the facts of the case. The only hope of success for plaintiff was the establishment of fraud, said Mr Graham. He submitted that the equity and good conscience clause should not be invoked. The case had to be dealt with on the evidence. The Magistrate: This evidence we have had has not been worth a scrap. I think that there was no doubt at all that defendant represented that the machine would make a 25 per cent. saving in petrol. For plaintiff, Mr Ongley said that there had been on doubt that defendant, either directly or indirectly, had represented that the humidisers would increase the mileage by 25 per cent. There was no doubt, said the Magistrate, that defendant had represented that the humidisers would save 25 per cent, in petrol. He had intended to, and did, leave the impression that the saving in petrol woul result if the attachment were fitted. There was one particular carburetter on which he had tested the machine time and again and it had not produced any impression on the benzine consumption through that carburetter. He did not tell the man lie wanted to be his agent that the saving was none at all on that carburetter. He was knowingly creating an impression that the saving would be 25 per cent. Therefore he intended to give judgment on the equity and good conscience clause on the grounds of fraud. Palmerstons. Ltd., had gone into voluntary liquidation. The defendant had bought the assets and he claimed to be selling for another company —a company that had been formed on only £IOO of capital. If ever there were a case in which the equity and good conscience clause should apply, surely it was this one. Judgment was accordingly given for £24 4s 6d. “It seems to me that there is something seriously wrong with the Companies Act when it will allow companies to be formed in this way,” commented the Magistrate. The costs awarded amounted to £lO 4d. CLAIM FOR FEES. In the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr J- L. Stout, S.M., Reginald Thorrold Jaggard proceeded against Mrs Ethel Constance Burns, for the sum of £27 16s 6d for professional services rendered. Mr J. A. Grant appeared for plaintiff and Mr J. M. Gordon for defendant. After evidence concerning the details of the work done bv plaintiff upon defendant’s instructions had been heard, judgment was entered, with defendant’s consent, for the amount of £25 5s and costs.