MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18680, 9 April 1924, Page 12

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

BUSINESS SALE DISPUTE. 'PURCHASER'S CLAIM FAILS. An action arising from the sale of a fruit and confectionery business was the subject of a reserved decision by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The purchaser, Henry Cook (Mr. Newberry), claimed £125 damages from the vendor, Joseph Clarkson ! (Mr. Jordan). The business was sold for i £375- Plaintiff alleged that defendant ini duced him to buy the business by reprej senting that the takings averaged £30 a | week, and that of this the profit was from j £10 to £15. I The magistrate said the takings had averaged £30 a week since plaintiff had ! had the business, but the profits, plain- ■ tiff said, were very much below £10 or £15 a week. This was the main point on which plaintiff relied. Damages were also claimed in respect of fittings. Mr. Cutten said there was the usual conflict of evidence on the question of representations made, but in this case the position was made very clear by a solicitor who acted for the parties in preparing a promissory note given at the time of the settlement. Tho solicitor said they both informed him there was an undertaking that the takings should reach £30 a week for two months, and nothing further. Tho takings had done this. A representation that in the vicinity of 50 per cent, of the takings of a fruit and confectionery business would be net profit, would not be likely because it did not seem reasonable and would hardly mislead anyone, «ald Mr. Cutten. The evidence that such a representation was made would have to be ranch clearer than in this case to be a good ground for damages, but in any event the solicitor's evidence settled tha question. Judgment was for defendant

BRICKLAYER AND BUILDER. Decision in a dispute between a bricklayer and a builder was given by Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M. George Burgess, bricklayer (Mr. Matthews), sought to recover from Charles Henry Cox, builder (Mr. Dickson), £171 la 3d, balance alleged to be due under subcontracts and for other work done by plaintiff in connection with the erection of buildings. Defendant counter-claimed for £82 7s 7d in respect of alleged faulty work and non-completion of contracts. The magistrate said that a? the Court found on weight of evidence that one of the jobs was not a contract, it could not allow defendant to deduct the amount paid by him to another man for material used on that job. Continuing, Mr. Poynton said he doubted if ho should allow the claim for discounts. Defendant did not receive them, perhaps through nonpayment in time, but the magistrate could not find any authority where it was stated that defendant must make pood such discounts. Had he received them defendant would have had to keep them in trust for plaintiff. On the claim judgment was for plaintiff for £94 5s Bd, with costs, and on the counter-claim judgment was for defendant for £18 12s aiid costs.