MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13168, 4 May 1906, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THE wecKiy , sibling ui ine -auagistiiiw; s Court was held yesterday, before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiffs, with costs, was given in each of the following undefended cases: J. Southerwood v. ' Robert Hunt, £8 10s; David A. Nairn v. Thomas Markie, £1 17s 8d; Macky, Logan, Steen and Co. v. Alexander Paterson (Hawera) £76 16s ; Milne and Choyco v Mrs. Baggot Birch (Tairua), £20 5s 3d; M. J Bennett v. C. A. Bassett, 10s; L. D. Nathan and Co. v. Mrs. B. Birch, £1 8s 8d (against the separate estate of the defendant, a married woman); N. A. Nathan v Mrs. Bagot Birch, £4 16s (against defendant's separate estate) G. McElwain v. Alfred Rhodes, £2 3s 3d; John Court v. David Herd, £6 2s 2d. ; OLAIM FOR COMMISSION. Ernest Colson, land agent, (Mr. E. W. Burton), proceeded against John Kennedy (Mr. E. Mahony), for commission on a sale of property alleged to have been made by plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that defendant approached him in August last, and put the property in question in his hands for sale. If he secured a purchaser he was to receive the usual commission. On December 22, Mr. Petford called and asked if witness had any houses for sale at Epsom. Amongst others witness submitted particulars of defendant's property, and saw defendant, who said the property was still for sale. They all went over the property together. : When ! witness saw Mr. Kennedy in January, the latter said the place had been sold. On■ witness inquiring whether Mr. Petford was the buyer, Mr. Kennedy admitted that he was. "The property was bought by Mr. Petford for £750, and he claimed the usual commission—live per cent, on the first £100 and 2>i per cent, on the rest. The defence was that the sale was not made through the instrumentality ofthe plaintiff. Judgment was entered for defendant, with costs. ■ . j CLAIM AGAINST WAIWERA CO. The McGregor Steamship Company proceeded against the Waiwera Company, Limited, for £102 2s 6d, for freight and passages. A counter claim was made by the defendant company for £44 13s, part of the company's contribution to the defendants' wharf at Waiwera. Mr. Baxter appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. McVeagh for the defendant company. Malcolm McGregor, solicitor, and director of the plaintiff company, said they had had transactions with the defendant company and an account was rendered to the defendants in August, 1904, for £91 9s 3d by the McGregor Steamship Company. This was sent back, the defendants admitting the amount but claiming certain deductions, .which the plaintiffs did not admit. In 'November, 1905, witness sent ah . account to the defendants for £102 12s 9d, and a contra account was then rendered to the plaintiffs, leaving them in the debt . of the Waiwera Company to the amount • of about £3. The plaintiffs did not admit all these deductions. To Mr. McVeagh: Witness bad a pera, sonal knowledge of many of the items [ enumerated in the statement of claim. The McGregor Company ceased doing business • on July 31 of last year, and prior to that ; time the carrying for the defendants was i divided between the two companies trading to Waiwera. Witness considered that his '-■■ company did not get their fair share, particularly in the passenger traffic. For the defence, William Rasbleigh ' Mowbray, secretary to the, defendant com- ' pany; said the company owned the hotel .'.' at Waiwera. Up till 1903 there was no • wharf at Waiwera, and then the company ' erected a wharf at a cost of £1600. The wharf enabled steamers to berth instead of dropping anchor, as previously, and . landing passengers and* cargo by boats. • A-meeting was held to consider what each ' steamship company should pay. The final ' arrangement was that the McGregor and Coastal Steamship Companies should pay the Waiwera Company £50 each per year for the use of the wharf. The Coastal 1 Steamship Company had carried out the contract faithfully. Defendant company • sent monthly accounts to the plaintiff comi, pany. In August, 1905, witness, found |> that the plaintiff company refused to carry jl out the contract. The defendant company i, distributed their cargo and passengers al- > most equally between the plaintiff company »' and the Coastal Steamship Company. The •'. steamship companies had no right to cany •'• any of the people employed by the defen--8 dant company without the latter' written y authority. ......-■• i. To Mr. Baxter: Prior to 1903 there was no arrangement between the plaintiff

and defendant companies. He was positive Mr. McGregor agreed for the plaintiff company to the agreement to contribute £50 a year. Mr. McGregor said he thought the Coastal Company should pay more as they used the wharf more than the McGregor Company. John Mowbray, chairman of directors of the defendant company, confirmed the arrangement that the defendants were to pay £50 a year for the use of the wharf. Alfred Seccombe, director, gave similar evidence. , Charles Augustus Cawkwell, clerk of the Waitemata County Council, produced the minutes of the Council of August 7, 1903, in which the plaintiff company and Coastal Company agreed' to contribute £50 per annum each. To Mr. Baxter: Mi. McGregor had told witness since then that he considered the charge prohibitive. Regarding the counter claim Malcolm McGregor, one of the partners of the plaintiff company, said the arrangement to pay £50 was never authorised by the company. Their steamers lay at the Auckland wharf for 18 out of the 24 hours, and only paid £18 per year. At wharves similar to that at Waiwera the company only paid £5 a year. The construction of the Waiwera wharf did nob increase the plaintiff company's business, as they had better facilities for landing at Waiwera than the Coastal Company. The freights and passengers carried for the Waiwera Company in one year amounted to only £40. Before the construction of the wharf they carried about three parts of the traffic. The wharf gavo the Coastal Company an advantage over the plaintiff company. Before the construction of the wharf the plaintiffs offered the defendant company £100 for their exclusive trade for three or five years, but this was declined. Alexander Hatfield, member of the Waitemata County Council, said Mr. McGregor, at the Council meeting in August, 1903, objected to the payment of £50, on the ground that the charge was prohibitive, and said he would have to consult his directors. At the conclusion of Mr. McVeagh's adress the Court adjourned until ten o'clock this morning.