MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15132, 24 October 1912, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

.■■ ■ "»>- : — A BLACKSMITH'S BUSINESS. DISPUTE OVER THE" SALE. The sitting of the Magistrate's: Court, was presided over yesterday by Mr." C. C. Kettle," S.M., : r'' ."a' ' " ' : > ■"'' ;. ; -LukeTomlinson, a blacksmith, for whom Mr. J; H. Gregory appeared, brought a claim against Oharles 1 Reynolds, another blacksmith,''' for payment of £30, balance alleged to ba due upon the purchase of his blacksmith's stand, in - Dominion. . Road. Tho defendant, who was represented by Mr. A. B. Skelton, lodged a counter-claim demanding the return of £10, and interest, part; of ; £20 paid him on account, and alleging fraudulent representation, in; respoet' of which a further £40 was ; claimed

as damages. - ■ . \ The : defendant stated that: he had agreed to purchase the. goodwill and plant of the plaintiff's business for £50i of which he had> paid £5 depdsiiy and later -a sum of; £15. :; ' Ho had not been: told that the plant was not included in *he transaction, Plain-, : tiff had told him that the business, was worth £4 a week to him, and that th© rent was 10s weekly. Witness Had* however, done no business to speak of •• and found the rent to be 12s 6d.\ Further, defendant had no idea that the plant was not his own until Mr. Alexander Hejidifty, of Kingslaiid, visited the shop- 1 and informed him thai i Tomlinfion never had possessed the plant, but that it was his (Headls/fi) property. \ Defendant had distinctly understood, when making the, agreement with Tomlinson, that the plant -the property of the latter. \ -; i '•:' Alexander.• Headley, of ; Eingsland, a re- ! tired blacksmith, stated that; ho had i handed.over the"shop and plant, the latter of which was witness's property, to ToinI iinsoii when leaving ; fora' trip to, England. i TomlinsOn ,was to make, what he -could of lit till his return.; There was, no money I consideration nor agreement between them.'; On' his return witness found thai iihe busi-; hess had decreased to "euch an extent tna, 1 . he bad not taken over the shop again. . He had not sold the plait nor the business to Tomlinson. ".-.. " . : ,„.:■, ■ .. Luke Tonttlinßon the' plaintiff (m, the claim stated that he had not mentioned the plant as being his property, when making the sale to Reynolds. He had never owned it. It was the stand .which he had sold. ' '■ The cage was adjourned- for a . week to enable a report by an , accountant upon TomUnson's books to be placed'.'before,the Court. , .-.-.'.: _ ' BOARDINGHOUSE DISPUTE. A claim regarding a furnished boardinghouse' was brought by Hare Pure against Patina To Taki*. ' Plaintiff, as; lessee, claimed .from the defendant, as sublessee, £2; being the amount alleged M■, ■.*'•» due to plaintiff by the defendant for r*W: between August 31" and September 6, 1912, in respect of "a furnished house teased, by the; plaintiff to the defendant." Plaintiff further claimed'-, possession of tho house and furniture and effects; and also rent at. the rate of £2 -per week from September, '6 -up "to the ; date of th© hearing. -Mr. Dunlpp; peared .for the . plaintiff and Mr. Prend.er. gast for the defendant.; , , : Mr. Prendei'gast raised preliminary objections to that wortiou of the claim, which comprised a claim for polssesßion of the - furniture on • the ground, * ('!) TKs&ifc was a special jurisdiction under which the claim for possession of a'tenement iwas-brought, and the Act permitted : a 'claim' for rent only to be joined with: a claim for posses?. ; sioitt of a tenement; arid -(2) that if a -claim ' for; furniture could: be joined ■ with ' a claim' for a tenement, then the plaint;note, was defective,, in that it contained no",'reference to the* furniture ■ and; - therefore,' did not set but the substance 'of;:.the actions Mr. Bunion said he was' not prepared with authorities to contest Mr. Prendergast'f contention,'and it was decided to go on with the healing of the case, the points raised ,to be held over '.for: later considera- , tion. .... ■ -,-.-' ", Mr. Duhlop then read the '< agreement which had been, drawn up'-, between the parties,:and which. stated that, defendant agreed: to purchase the boardinghouso for £200. The sum of. £50 .was' to be paid down, with,instalments of. £2 per week for four months, after which the balance was to be paid. Defendant was also .-:to; pay £2 per week rent to the landlord of the pre--misea. i If at the end of;four • months de-? fendant had ! hot. kept up' the payments of £2 per week for rent, or the £2 per -WiJek instalments; then defendant ; was to vacate the premises and to. forfeit " all moneys paid. : v ' "'. Considerable argument took place between Mr. Dunlop and His Worship as to whether the:: agreement was for; a lease' or purchase. Mr. fettle held that the agreement clearly was one for purchase, -and firjallv, Mr.*Dunlop agreed to accept a bohsuit. " Tliis was granted with costs against plaintiff.