MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14150, 27 August 1909, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

DEFAULT CASES. * Judgment with costs was given the plaintiff i by default by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., in '•'•'._ the following cases at the Magistrate's Court yesterday:Hutchinson Brothers, Limited, v., B. S. Shepherd (Mangomii), £9 14s 7d; Sharland and Co., Limited, v. Tuteri Wi Repa (Gisborno), £6 Os 8d; F. Petri* and Co. v. Jure Simundich (Wailmrara) £25 4s lOd; R. Rew v. Joe Hohea (Avvanui North), £3 17s; Commissioner of Taxes v. Robert Forbes Moore (Auckland), £15 17s 6d; G. A. Coles and Co., Limited, v. W. C. Soar'(Auckland), £68 12s 7d; Auckland Brewers' and Aerated Waters Employees' Union v. William Kisby (Ponsonby), £2 2s; same v. Michael Perry (Auckland), £1 15s; same v. N. Hamblin (Auckland), £1 8s; P. Bryant v. Peter Gillespie (Richmond), £3 7s Id; G. Doughty and Co. v. William Fitzsimmons Ford (To Kuiti), £1 13s sd; D. Hedlcy v. James Meehan (Grahamstown), £1 17s 8d; P. Bryant v. William Farrell (Thames), £1 14s lOd; E. G. Clarke v. Barney Seagar (Auckland), £1 10s; J. Ehrman v. George Smith (Gisbome), £3 6s 3d; W. Phillipps and Son v. W. Webb (Auckland), £7 8s 4d; P. B. Morris v. G. Owen (Auckland), £4 14s; J.. R. Nairn' v. J. Mangan (Parncll), £1 18s 4d; A. R. D. Watson v. Magnus Manson and James M. Manson (Auckland), £6 8s 6d: E. G. Clarke v. Robert Swindley (Auckland), £4 10s; Donald and Edenborough v. Charles Henry Keane (Aratapu), £1 12s 8d! POSSESSION OF GOODS. The case of W. P. Naughton v. Mrs. Bridget Grayden, partly heard some time ago, was concluded yesterday. Plaintiff claimed that defendant had wrongfully detained, and still detained from him, his goods and chattels of the value of £42 10s, despite his repeated claims for possession. ... Plaintiff claimed to recover from . defendant possession of,the goods, or, in case possession could not be had, then £42 10s, value of the goods, together with £10 as damages for their detention, making in all £52 10s. Defendant counter-claimed for £32 16s for storage, remittance of £10, and other expenses.. The magistrate found that the defendant had no right to the amount claimed ' as storage, but he thought she was entitled to some reward for having cared for plaintiffs goods. He was of opinion that defendant wrongfully withheld the goods as security for this claim for storage.' The demand was grossly in excess of the real hen. Strictly speaking, * defendant was entitled, to some damages, but, on the other hand, plaintiff had almost abandoned the goods, and .defendant was entitled under the " equity and conscience " clause to some fair remuneration for having" looked after them. Defendant would be allowed £5 10s on her counter-claim, which amount would bo set * off against £5, which would be allowed as ' damages to, the plaintiff. All the goods wer-e ordered to be returned to plaintiff. Mr. A. Devore appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. MaoGormick for defendant. . '' . > . DISPUTED i PROMISSORY NOTE. - : -James ' Hill, -. represented by Mr. A. E. 3kelton, sued Alfred W. Ellis, for whom Mr. Pullen appeared, for the sum of £38 : 10s, being the amount alleged to be due under a promissory note. The defendant-; admitted-having given the note, but stated that the goods for which it was given.were not merchantable, and therefore valueless. -' Ho offered to' return the goods to the plaintiff, but refused to pay for them. After . % hearing considerable evidence, Mr. Kettle " gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount ■ claimed, with'costs. ;; ' SALE OF A HORSE. In the adjourned case of Thomas Cunning-' ! : ham v. William Montgomery, a claim for , £91 5s 6d • for alleged breach of contract with regard to the sale of a mare, Mr. Kettle " gave judgment for the plaintiff for £83 3s, with costs £9 18s. Mr. E. MacCormick, • instructed by Messrs. Alison ■. and Alison, .:; appeared: for the plaintiff. Notice of appeal Was'given by the defendant. A SOLS|ITOR'S COSTS. '■A The adjourned case of George 1 William ■''■' Basley, for whom Mr. Wyman . appeared, 7 J \ against Edward Valdemar ;. Johansen, repre- j;; sented -by Mr. ' Burton., in which \ plaintiff claimed \£ls, amount of a bill of costs in .: connection with the formation of a company, " was concluded yesterday. ..Defendant stated 1 ' that he had never instructed plaintiff to prepare the, papers '.■' in . connection with the if* company ," the only interest he had in the;' company was in taking one share, and sign- . ing the memorandum, of association for the, purposes of registration. .. Mr. Kettle .said judgment would be given for the ■; defendant, with costs. He quoted ; judicial authority, which stated that the relations between solicitor and client might be inferred from their acts, even if the solicitor - did not get a retainer.'; If A. B. and C. went into a solicitor's'office in connection with the preparation of a deed,' the Court would consider them jointly and severally liable, but there might be rebutting evi- ' dence of such liability. In the present case ■■$*. the surrounding circumstances showed strong Y rebutting evidence. Mr. Johansen, sen., had " proved that he had had no interest '.. whatever J > in the company, beyond signing the memorandum of association and . taking one • share ii'A for the purposes of registration. Furthermore, plaintiff's own diary showed that he had looked to Mr. Johansen, jun., ' for his> costs.* Defendant would be alowed the usual;; ;? costs besides his actual out-of-pocket ex- ,' penses in coming to Auckland from Christchurch. ' ■ | .