CIVIL DAY.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 2775, 17 October 1923, Page 9

CIVIL DAY.

AT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. A civil sitting of the Magistrate's Court was held yesterday, Mr J. JL. Stout, S.M., presiding. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiff by default was entered in each of the following cases: C. V. Port (Mr Oakley) v. J. C. Dench (Whakaronga), £2 18/2, costs £1 7/6; A, A. Gandexton (Mr Ongley) v. H. C. Rodgers (Palmerston North), £1 2/, costs 8/; same v. Peter Olsen (Palmerston North), £2 6/6, costs £1 3/6; Standard Brewery (Mr Ongley) v. Hirst and Gothara (Woodville), £39 2/8, costs £4 1/6; P. J, Sheppard (Mr Innes) v. J. C. Dench (Whakaronga), £54, costs £4 17/6; C. P. Spooner (Mr McGregor) v_ Harvey and Co. (Levin), £S 3/6, costs £1 10/6. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

Manawaroa Te Awe Awe (Rangiol'u) was ordered to pay E. D. and H. Barber (Mr Innes) the sum of £3O 7/, in default 28 days' imprisonment, warrant to be suspended so long as defendant paid the sum by February 1, 1924.

CLAIMS FOR COMMISSION

BURROWS V. MURPHY

Reserved judgment was given t>y Mr Stout in the case Harry Burrows (Mr Oram) v. Charles Murphy (Mr Innes).

"This is a claim by a firm of land agents for commission in, the sale of a tobacconist's and hairdresser's business" said Mr Stout. "It is, in my opinion, quito clear from tho evidence that although the plaintiff firm was the first to obtain particulars, at the defendant's request, of the business, the sale was not effected through its introduction, but through the intervention of other agents, after negotiations through the plaintiff firm had definitely fallen through. This behig the case, the plaintiff firm is not entitled cither t'o commission or to recover upon a quantum meruit for any services rendered. Judgment will be for defendant with the usual costs." BACON COMPANY SUED, Erie Hampton, pork butcher,, of Gis. borne (Mr Cooper), proceeded against the Manawatu Bacon Company (Mr Oram), claiming recovery from the defendant firm of the sum of £55 18/, being the amount allegedly due, up to June 8, 1923, for commission on the sale of goods to the plaintiff and to Messrs L. D. Nathan and Co., Ltd. Robert Davidson stated that he was managing directoi of tho Manawatu Bacon Company, Ltd. No contract was ever entered info by the company or anybody authorised by the company, to pay the plaintiff commission, as alleged in the statement of claim. He had never been in Gisborno ,on ' the company's business, and the only conversation he had had with the plaintiff since the company commenced bfisiness, was. upon the company's premises at Palmerston North. All orders given either by the plaintiff or Messrs Nathan and Co. were sent to the registered office of the company by letter or by telegram. Tho defendant company did not take over the business of Garrity and Co., Ltd., and was nop bound by any arrangement of that firm. Lengthy evidence was heard, after which decision was reserved.. UNPAID SERVICES.

Robert Edwards, architect, of Palmerston. North, took action against Patrick Gill, carrier, of Shannon, claiming the sum of £127 11/, for professional services, as follows:—Consulting, advising, and supervising, the use of plans, details and specifications required in connection with the erec. tion of a one-stwrey brick building, with wooden front, to be erected in Shannon, and calling tenders and letting contract for same, and subsequent ly consulting, advising and supervising amended plans and details, or specifications for a two-storey brick building on the same site, and calling for tenders and letting contract and general supervision.

Plaintiff stated, in his evidence, that defendant made arrangements with him to prepare plans and specifications for a one-storey house. This wit. ness did, giving defendant the scale price for drawing them up, and making the cost quite clear. Plans and specifications were then drawn, up and were approved by defendant, tenders being called and one accepted. Defendant thon desired to build a twostorey house, and fresh plans were dfawii up. Some time later plaintiff broached the subject of payment with defendant, who offered £SO. This witness refused, \and billed defendant. For the defence, Mr Grant stated that there was a special agreement made before the plans and specifications were drawn up. When discussing them, defendant had stated that he could not afford the scale charge, and on the condition that defendant should say nothing about it, plaintiff put forward a proposal that he would do the work for' a nominal fee, and not by the scale charges. After the revision of the plans, defendant could get no satisfaction as to what the price would would be. His Worship stated that plaintiff seemed to have done all that was alleged, and judgment was entered accordingly. CONCERNING EGGS. Harriet Greedy, of Miranui (Mr McGregor) proceeded against May Coakley, of Shannon (Mr Ongley) claiming £3 12/6 on 29 dozen eggs at 2/6 a dozen, alleged to have been supplied to defendant in June, 1923. Plaintiff deposed to having supplied defendant with 21 dozen eggs on June 14, 1923, and eight dozen on June 19. Payment for the eggs was not forth, coming, but was promised at an' early date. Defendant was then burnt out, and through defendant's husband allegedly turning into liquor money entrusted to him, payment was still delayed. . <-■ '

On being cross-examined, -witness Sttited to Mr Ongley that shortly after | the fire, defendant's husband went r bankrupt. She denied ..Jjhat if the j bankruptcy had not occurred, Mr |

Coakloy and not defendant, would have been charged lor the price of tha eggs, j She stated that defendant aajd: ' Don't' •bo afraid to leave the eggs, I will see that you are paid."' For the defence, Mr Ongley stated that defendant denied having bought the eggs herself, and did not promise to pay for them, but "would see that they were paid for," Plaintiff herself had . admitted defendant having used these words.

His Worship stated that he thought that the eggs had been supplied, but not to. defendant, who, had accepted no responsibility for them beyond the expressed endeavour to see that the eggs wore paid for. Judgment would be a n on-suit.