MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13780, 19 June 1908, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

.':': :: ' ; ' UNDEFENDED CASES. - ■■ I Mr. C. C, Ktrm-K. .S.M.. presided over! yesterday's sitting ' of -.-'.' the Magistrate's j Conn, and save judgment for plaintiff*, by default, In the following undefended eases: | Wenzl Scholium v, Edgar Bowltmgs f (Auckland),. £4 10?. and mts 10s: the Oceanic Fifth Company, Limited, v. .7. J.j Grupen (New Plymouth), £3 5?, and costs.] 10a: D. Robertson v. A. ; Messenger '( Poo-! sonby), £4 4s lid. and costs 10s; A. Key- I iiokls v. Mrs S. Makaeini (Auckland), £2 I ft* 6d, and costs 1.0.*: Henry Hack ■v. } Patrick Minogue (Auckland), 12?, and costs ) 5?; Nurse Burnt v. William Davy (Filers- j lie), £3 3*. and costs 10s; Green and" Cole- :| brook v. J. F. Mttlqueen (Auckland), £9 Sa 3d. and costs £l*3s fri; K. 0. Brown v. G. K. While (Mattngatapere), £4 4s, and j costs £1; Mary Ann Miller v., Patrick | Clune (Auckland), 16s, and .costs ss; j Craneh and Williams v. John C. Grey j (Auckland), £7 ?s, and costs £1 17s; Stones and White v. A. Gabriel (Auck- ! land), £10 3s, and costs £l 10» 6d ; City Council v: Charlotte. A. Flcwellyn (Ponson by), £4 6s Bd, ami costs 6s; Dexter and Crosier, Limited) v. William Harrison (Herekino), £10 19s 3d, and costs £1 16*• 6d; J. Pates v. J. Marks (of barque -Panamere), £5, and costs 7s; W. G. Smith v. E. Bennett (Stratford), £6 10s. and costs £1 os'6d; A: Gilford and Co., v. F. King (Gisborne), £3 10?, and costs ss; Smith and Caughey, Limited, v. Albeit Dorricott (Tuakau). £10 16s 3d, and costs £2 0s 6d : Gladding and Hunter v. F, Hcnery (Waiuku). £38 12s, and costs £1 i os; George Ivieevich v. John H. Ryan j (Mangawai), £56, and costs £3 17s 6d.. | A PECULIAR TRANSACTION. I Mary Brennan claimed to recover from Mrs. S. Stewart the sum of £50, being money received in connection with the sale of a. boardinghouse business. Mr. E. Mahony appeared for the plaintiff,, and Mr. W. F. Brook-field for the defendant. The statement of claim set forth that the plaintiff Mas recently the proprietress of a boardinghouse situated in Mount-street-, Auckland, and the defendant an agent, carrying on business in Auckland. In the month of November last the plaintiff placed her business and furniture in the hands of the defendant, as her agent, for sale. The defendant, acting as such agent, introduced to the plaintiff, Mrs. "Catherine L. Vos, as a. proposed purchaser, and the plaintiff subsequently fixed the price at which she had decided to sell the said business and furniture at the sum of £35. During November, the business and furniture, were sold by the .plaintiff through the defendant to Mrs. L. Vos. The plaintiff then believed and understood that the purchase money was paid to the plaintiff, by Wenzl Scholium, financial agent. In February last plaintiff ascertained that th« purchase money paid by Mrs. Vos to the ' defendant amounted, in fact, to the sum of £85, and not £35. The defendant had not accounted to the plaintiff for the sum of £50, being the difference between the sums of £35 and £85, or any part thereof, notwithstanding that the plaintiff had appealed to the defendant for the £50. Evidence was given in support of the statement of claim. Cross-examined by Mr. Brookfield, the plaintiff said that she was anxious to get rid of her business, and placed it in the hands of the defendant instructing her to sell it for £110. If the defendant succeeded in selling , the property for that sum, she was to receive £10 as commission. ■ • The defendant, .said that she had not received any money from Mr. Scholium in connection with the sale. To 'Mr. Kettle: She expected to get £50 from Mrs. Vos. To Mr. Brookfiekl : Witness had not received any money at all at the present time. Mr. Kettle said he would not give judgment, in the case at present", as "the whole thing was a swindle, and a cunning transaction.'' He would go lu'ilv into the matter. ' ' ' It was ultimately decided to adjourn the case until this morning, when further evidence will be- called. A FISH CLAIM. . , Joseph Winters sued the Oceanic Fish Company, Limited (S. Green and Co.), for £13, being,the value of fish sold-and delivered to the defendants. Mr. W. E. Haekett appeared for the- plaintiff, and Mr. Gregory for the defendants. After hearing evidence, the further' hearing of the case was adjourned until this morning. The defence was that the" fish were bad ; when delivered.