MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13390, 19 January 1907, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

.IrnuMKXT StiMUOXSKS: Orders on judgment summonses were made against defendants as follows by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M.. yesterday:— ('. W. Holland v. W. 11. B. Raw.-on, ordered to pay £1 4- within seven days, or in default. 24 hours' imprisonment; .1. Todd v. .1. F. Rush, to nay 6s within, seven days, or in default 24 hours' imprisonment ; Mr-. lb Climo v. T. Sherson, to pay £13 13s within 14 days, or in default -even days' imprisonment: W. Galbraith v. W. .lessen, to pay £2 10s lCd within seven days, or in default. 48 hours' imprisonment : 15. Meßride v. H. Phillips, to pay £4 5s 6d within 14 days, or in default .-even days' imprisonment ; Mary Martin v. .1. Hack, to pay £5 12s within 14 day-, or in default seven days' imprisonment ; Mary Hendry v. Mills Ross, to pay £28 IS- within ,-ix week-, or ill default four week-' imprisonment. A Share Transaction: The case in which Alexander Kccles sought to recover £18 from H. A. Wright, recently of the firm of B. R. Keesing and Co., sliarebrokers, was continued. Mr. E. W. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hanna for defendant. The amount claimed was said to be due on a mining transaction, which the plaintiff alleged was carried out in term- contrary to those authorised. No further evidence was called, and counsel proceeded to argue the legal position. Mr. Hanna contended that the plaintiff must be nonsuited. He was quite prepared to adopt the position taken up at the Supreme Court, namely, that ol agent and principal, and as such bis client .- firm, after buying shares from other brokers, had a month in which to meet the obligation on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant had lost over the. transaction, and of the £18 had only kept 5-. handing the remainder to the other brokers. The money was received from the plaintiff, and duly paid out again as from him, *o that it was impossible for the plaintiff to recover the money. Mr. Burton submitted that at the time "of paying the £18 the plaintiff considered that a valid contract had been entered into in the terms, authorised in the. two advice notes. Counsel also hold that at tin; time of payment- of the £18 the defendant knew, or should have known, that no valid contract had been entered into. His Worship said that it was clear to him that the £13 was merely received by the defendant's company from the plaintiff for the use of another sharebroker. Out of the £18 the company had only retained 5s for its service.-. Till! plaintiff would therefore bo nonsuited, and'eosts would be allowed. Mr. Burton asked for, and was given, leave to appeal.