MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15073, 16 August 1912, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

JUDGMENT SUMMONS CASES.

Orders were made for payment in the following judgment summons cases by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M.. at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, with alternatives of imprisonment, each order to be suspended for a specified period :—Hutchinson Bros. v. Alfred Hawkins (Takapuna), £1 14s lOd ; Tw'iname and Baker v. F. R. Mcrley (Otorohanga). £5 7s 6d; Williams and Green v. J. Ryan. (Mount Eden), £15 17s lid ; H. C. Tonics v. F. Tonge (Ngaruawahia), £7 8k: A. W. Pago v. F. Wells (Dominion Road), £7 9s 6d.

FOR SERVICES RENDERED. A claim for £86 was preferred by Victor G. Richards, of Auckland, against William Dunstan, of Taupiri, for services alleged to Lave been rendered in connection with the settlement of some partnership business in which defendant was interested. Tlie statement of claim alleged an agreement whereby plaintiff was to receive 10 per cent upon the gross amount obtained by defendant from the partnership by plaintiff's efforts, and that the sum of £865 17a 6d was so obtained, and that he was accordingly entitled to the sum of £86 claimed. The item in respect of which the claim was made was a farm, alleged by the two other partners to have been purchased privately by themselves, but claimed by defendant as a portion of the partnership property. The whole question of the partnership* property was finally submitted to arbitration, plaintiff being one of the arbitrators and receiving remuneration as such, but he advanced the contention that the farm was acknowledged as a portion of the partnership assets prior to the commencement of the arbitration, by his efforts, and that he was therefore entitled 10 his commission for having obtained the acknowledgment. Evidence for and against this contention was submitted, the defence advancing that the acknowledgment in reject of the farm came subsequent to, and in consequence of, the arbitration. In giving judgment His Worship reviewed the evidence in detail. He ruled that upon the institution of arbitration the prior agreement between the parties concluded and plaintiff was then entitled only to what came to. him as arbitrator and later as one of the trustees for the partnership property. He was satisfied, he said, that plaintiff was entitled to fair remuneration for the work done prior to that time, oven though the evidence did not satisfy him that it was owing to plaintiff's previous exertions that the farm was brought in as partnership property. The evidence as to these services was not' wholly satisfactory, but it was established that there were some for which plaintiff -was entitled to a " quantum meruit." Judgment would be for plaintiff for £20, with costs. ■ Mr. W. E. Hackctt appeared for plaintiff, the defence being conducted In- Mr T. IT. Dawson.