MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13234, 20 July 1906, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

UNDEFENDED CASES.

Jijjjgmbnt for plaintiffs, with costs; was given by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., in .each of tiie following undefended cases, at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning: — S. Nixon v. .Tames Kellett, £1 ss; D.S.C v. Wisniwiski (Tariki), £5 Ms 8(1; David Goldie v. R. .Jones, £8 .7s 2d; Benjamin Grayson v. J. Miles, £1 12s 3d; D.S.C'. v. E. R. J. Bennett (Inglewood), £5 13s Id ; R. Furrjess and Go. v. Mrs. McCotinell, £1 13s; Thomas Wallace v. William Brewer, £1; School Commissioners v. Alfred Curtis (Te Mata), £4256 d ; Buchanan and Co., Limited, v. C. S. Crawford (Ivaponga), £6 10s 9d; Milne and Choyce, Limited, v. Charles Garton (Oruru), £6 Is lid; S. J. Best and Co. v, A. 0. Bicknell (Greytown), £9 ss; H. E. Partridge and Co. v. Walter Freeman (Wellington), £11 5s 6d ; Herbert Thompson and Co.' v. A. Paterson (Hawsra), £115 Is; Wingate and Co., Limited, v. W. Thompson (To Mat a), £41 3s 9d;i James Ramnar v. D.. F. Hyland, 10s; S. Ehnnan v. R. A. McCardle (Raglan), £1 2s 6d; Lichtenstein , Arnoldsoil, and Co. v. 0. S. Edgar (Te Karaka, Gisborne), £1 17s 3d; Dr. A. Marsack v. Charles Crocker, £1 A. 10. Moginie v. S. Clark and Co. (New Plymouth),, £6 6s 9(1; J. • Hodgson v. W. Dixon (Rotorua), £35 16s 7d ; Alfred . liuckland and Sons v. H. A. H. Claridge (Waihi), £19 lis; J. Cahill and Co. v. M. Manson (Rotorua), £2 16s 6d * H. T. Garratt v. H. W. Aglian, 7s 6d : T. and H. Cooke v. Charles Poppleton, £2 7«5d : E. J. Paterson and others v. Tupaea Aknbata, £154 ss; T. and H. Cooke v. P. V. Ryan, £1 2s 6d ; Thos. Word en v. John Kealey, £9 12s; John Reid v. A. M.- Moon (Whangarei), £1 lis 6d; Robertson Bros. v. Miss A. Dent, £7 10s 7d; C. Burke v. D. M. Muir, £10 13s lid : New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, Limited, v. T. .T. Stanley (Te Aroha). £5 17s 9d.

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. ; A claim for £12 5s commission ■ was' made by C. E. Walker and Co., land agents, against A. Smith, of Mount Reskill. Mr. Baxter appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Maliony for defendant. Mr. Baxter said the only question in .dispute was whether the purchase' was brought about through the. instrumentality of the plaintiffs. . ' . Charles E. Walker, a member of the plaintiff firm, gave evidence as to calling upon defendant, in March last and receiving instructions from him to offer the property for sale, which he did by advertising. ' .Tames 'McKenzie, another member of the plaintiff firm, said Mr. John Clarke called upon him in June with reference to the house, and lie (witness) introduced him to the defendant, with the result that Hie house was. purchased by; Clarke for £390. John Clarke, the purchaser of the property, corroborate;! the last wit new' evidence. When asked as to how. he became aware that the house was for sale, witness said lie fact was reported to him by his sister. She said " it was suitable for her, ; and lie. then went to see. Mr. McKenzie, in whose hands he believed the property was for sale. In reply - to Mr. Muhony, witness said, though bo was the purchaser, lie really bought' the bouse for bis sister, Mm Taylor, with whom lie had made an arrangement. The defendant said he put a notice-board up outside the property, notifying that the place was for sale, and that in response to this Mrs. Taylor called. The sale was brought about/ by this means, and not through the .agency of the. plaintiffs. Mrs. Taylor also gave evidence, and said that she called upon the defendant in consequence of seeing the notice-hoard, which she saw by chance. The Magistrate said it seemed to him that it- whs quite clear that what led up to the purchase was defendant's board, and not the .plaintiffs' efforts, and he. entered jndgmenat for defendant, with costs.

. ANOTHER COMMISSION CASE. An action was brought by William B. Russell against Frank Harris and Company, monumental masons, for £20 lis 9d, balance of commission. Mr. J. R. Reed appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A. J. - Edmunds for the defendants, who disputed the claim. Plaintiff said he was employed by defendants ;i,s a canvasser, and was to receive travelling expenses and certain rates of commission. These rates were five per cent, upon all orders introduced in Conjunction with the sexton of the Waikaraka cemetery, and 10 per cent, upon all others. Witness gave particulars of the various transactions upon which he claimed commission, and several witnesses were called in support of his statements. Frank Harris, managing director of the company, said that in some of the transactions upon which plaintiff charged 10 per rent, lie was only entitled to five per cent, He denied that, plaintiff was guaranteed his travelling expenses, and said that the rates of commission upon which he wait engaged were five per cent, in connection with Waikaraka transactions, and 10 per cent, upon all others which he secured at contract prices. Upon cut. prices plaintiff was to receive a,n allowance. The further hearing of the case was adjourned until to-day.