BUSY MAGISTRATES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15613, 20 May 1914, Page 7

BUSY MAGISTRATES.

LENGTHY CIVIL LIST.

DEPOSIT ON A FARM.

An exceptionally large number of civil cases were set down for hearing at the Magistrate's Court yesterday when a list' of 210 cases was presented. The whcla of the forenoon sitting was taken up in dealing with the undefended cases, in granting adjournments, and in arranging times of hearing for defended cases. Judgment by default was given in 48 cases, and three magistrates either heard or gavo judgments in defended cases. The negotiations for tho purchase of .-»' farm at Pokeno formed tho basis of a case in which further evidence was taken before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M. A claim was made by A. E. Do war (Mr. A. Brown) against P. W. Bentley (Mr. W. Moore) for the return of the sum of £50 paid as a deposit on a farm owned by defendant! and situated at Pokeno. Plaintiff claimed that he was always ready to complete tho purchase.

Evidence for the defence was given yesterday by A. Gould, who said a prospective buyer, Mr. McDonald, had called at. his office regarding tho purchase of tho farm, but would not go on because of tho conditions of tho agreement; Dewar desired McDonald to buy the farm, and ho offered to sell it again at an advance of £100. Gould then said that if Dewar knew of another buyer who was prepared to pay a higher price for the land it was his duty, as agent for Bentley, ly sell tho farm to the best advantage. Evidence) was also given by McDonald and the de-< fendant, who explained his transactions with plaintiff. .-■•■' The Court sat until 6 p.m., and then ad-i journed until ten o'clock this morning.

CHINESE PUZZLE. A case arising out of a partnership be-* tween two Chinamen, one of whom became bankrupt, was heard before Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M. A claim was brought bv Win. Ah Chee (Mr. A. E. Skeltou) against Wm. Chan (Mr. R. A. Singer) for the sum of £19 17i; 9d for goods supplied and delivered, in tie months of April and May, 1913, to Jim Wong and Wm. Chan, trading as J. George and Co., fruiterers^ According to the statement of plaintiff's counsel Jim Wong and Wm. Chan wero trading as J. George and Company, fruits erers, when v the former filed a. petition in bankruptcy. Wm. Chan had only entered into partnership with Wong a short while* before the bankruptcy, which occurred in May, 1913. Wm. Ah Chee proved his claim against the estate, and Chan admitted that he was a partner in tho firm o£ J. George and Company. The question of a partner's liability was raised, and it was admitted that the lawwas quite clear. A creditor who proved, a debt against one bankrupt partner of a business was not stopped from proceeding against a solvent partner. ■;-• Evidence was given by Wm. AhChed regarding" 1 the business relations between; his firm and J. George and Company. Thßy never supplied these goods to Jim, Wong; they were supplied to the firm. Monev had "been lent by witness to Wong, who nad since worked for him, and the! lorn account was now almost paid. Mr. Singer contended that during the, currency of the partnership all the : business was done by Jim Wong, who did nob consult Wm. Chan. Counsel, who did nob call evidence, said his defence depended on the extraordinary transaction— had nea; , v evened accounts—between Wm. Ah Chee and Jim Wong. At this stage the case was adjourned until to-morrow. ;

"I ■ UNDEFENDED CASES; '..:) ' Judgment was given for plaintiffs, by dei fault, in the following undefended cases:-* F M- Winstone v. A. Tafford .(Motukw raka), £23 13s7d; Hutchinson Bros., Ltd, v C -F West (Hamuku),.£3 19s 6d; \>«. F. Hardy v. A- Anderson (To Aroha.), £9;' Phillipns and lmpev v. A. .'Harper (Manngakah'ia), £18 15* od ; W. E. TTCvarthea v E. C. Meredith (Auckland), £48 13s 9d; J. Handlev v. R. P.:Tninga (Auckland). £20; W. R. Twigg v. R. ?.' Tainga; (Auckland), £69 hod; Auckland.Gas Co. v. H. C. Hanson (Epsom), £14 13s 7a;" : A. Carncross v. E. G. Osborn (Wellington), £11 8s; G. F. Hollay v. P. Nelson (Auckland) £2 ss; E. Varlev and Co v. E. Hayle (Edendale), £1 17s 2d;' W. Buchanan, Ltd.. v. C. Richardson (Auckland), £1 6s2d; Ifaupiri Coal Mines. Lwi., v. J. McN. Adams (Inglowood), £34 55 3d; E. F. Jones v. R. J Handcock (One* hunga), £1 8s lid; Taupiri Coal Mines, Ltd. v. J. O'Malley (Whareroa), £3 143 4d; Tooman and Co.. Ltd. v. K. Campbell (Tairua), £2 9s 7d'; A M. Rryden v, J. Witheridgo (Eangsland), £6 8s; J. : Smith v. W. J. Cahill (Wanganui), £5 17s * Amburys, Ltd., v„ A. Haye (Parnell), £13 Is 7d; Peerless Art Studio V. W. Surrell (Nelson), £1 2s 6d; W. R. ' Twigg v. Thompson, Avigdor and Levy (Auckland), 12s; J. Colo v. P.. J. Webb (Pousonby), £3 6s; H. F. Winstone v. N. Podd (Tauranga), £9 ss; Arthur Tooman v. F., O'Grady (Newmarket), £10 7s 8d; J. D. Roberts v. F. E'. . Wilkinson (Gisborne), £29 15s 8d; ; Evelyn's. Royal Horse Fool Proprietory v. J. .Matthews ( Aucklandl, £1; D. Smith v. E. Bidgood (Pukekohe), £2 ss; A. Cutforth v. A. Davidson (Waihi). £4 8s 2d; J. F. King v. J. Bates (Petone), £1 13s; F. W. Doble v. A. C. Munro (Rotorua), £2 15s 9d; Connon ami I McLaren v. W. Grant (Edendale), £6 8a lOd; J. Howie v. G. Morgan (Hamilton), I £1 13s Id ; J. W. Bridgmanand Son v. J. Butler (Auckland), £1 14s Id; Remington and Roneo Agency Co. of N.Z. v. Young and Co. (To Kuiti), £1 5s 3d; R. D. Carder v. R. Hayson (Tonsonby), 17s; J. Cooko v. L. M. Morbus (Cambridge),- £5; Wheeler Bios. v. L. Hinton (Newton), £2 13s 7d; Andrews »nd Clark v. J. H. Thompson (Auckland). £1 2s 2d; F. Martin v. R. Hastings (Newton), £2; Win-, stone Ltd. v. J. Sorrenson (Auckland), filIs same v. H. McLeod (Mangonui), £1 2i lid; Alf. Bucklar.d and Sons v. H. Chittv (Hinuera), £5 17» 7d ; H. G. Clarke ami Co. v. Browne Bios. (Wellington), £5 6s ;' A. Cleave and Co.. v. W. L. Dennerlv(Thames), £10 Ids';' J. A. Endean v. P. Jones (Auckland), £8 0s 6d; O. H. Mosea v. E. Patterson (Auckland), £7 10s; S.J, Best and Co. v. M. J. Hanlev (Oamarn), £19 16s 3d; Wilson and Horton v A D Blick (Stratford). £1 lis 3d'. • ...,, '