RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

New Zealand Mail, Issue 951, 23 May 1890, Page 24

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, May 15. (Before Mr H. W. Robinson, R.M.) Civil Cases. —Judgment for plaintiffs with costs was given in the following civil cases :—-Hill and Sons v. E. L. Burns, L 5 2s 3d, and 10s costs ; Empire Loan and Discount Company v. C. E. Walker, Ll2 11s 4d, and LI costs ; same v.- P. Daly, L 6 3s, and 11s costs. The hearing 1 " of the case Annie Dwyer v. P. K. Watty and Walter Gray, claim L 25, occupied some time. The object of the suit was to recover a deposit of L 25 paid in the purchase of the Clyde quay Hotel from Donald Urquliart, the purchase not hav ng been completed. The plaintiff alleged that Urquhart had caused delay, and had misrepresented the takings. Elis Worship non-suited the plaintiff, on the ground that this allegation was not sustained, and that the defendants should have sued jointly with the vendor. L 3 19s costs were allowed. The case John Wingate v. A. Stefferson, claim Ll 5 17s lOd, was adjourned till the 29th for the production of evidence from Lqngburn The hearing of the case in which Messrs Wrigglesworth and Bi-ms sued James O’Mai] y, formerly in their employ, for L3O damages for breach of agreement find money advanced, was resumed, Mr Gully being for the plaintiffs, and Mr Jellieoe for the defendant. In the course of his evidence, the defendant said the advance of L2 from Small (by whom he was

engaged in Melbourne for the plaintiffs) was a private one, and the L 3 paid him by the plaintiffs was not to repay his passage money, but as ail ordinary advance. He understood that the whole of his passage money to New Zealand was to be paid by the plaintiffs. He had given instructions to a friend in Melbourne who owed him money to repay Mr Small the L2. During his engagement he had 'o do some Sunday work, and as nothing was said about L 3, he thought it was to be taken as a quid pro quo. At the end of October he was called in to interview Mr Wrigglesworth, who admitted that what he said was equivalent to dismissal, and said “ You have your remedy, and you can sue us if you like.” In consequence he left their employ, instructing a solicitor to proceed against the present plaintiffs for wrongful dismissal. The matter was settled, however, and he went back until February, when be gave a week’s notice and left again. Mr Jellicoe submitted that the plaintiffs annulled the contract by discharging the defendant in October. Having heard argument his Worship reserved judgment. The case of G. M. Hewson v. W. E. Hugo, a claim for L2 7s 6d, as payment for going out to make a valuation, of the defendant’s hotel at Ngauranga, was begun, but was postponed, there not being sufficient time to finish the hearing. His Worship gave judgment in the case Veitch and xillen v. Henry Harris, claim L2B 19s lid, in which the defendant repudiated the debt on the ground that it was incurred by his wife without his authority after she had left him. His Worship held that as it had been shown that; Mrs Harris was manager of the defendant’s household, as such she had an implied authority to pledge his credit, and he (his Worship) could not hold that there was such unequivocal prohibition against her doing so as to relieve him of liability, though no doubt there was a remonstrance against her running up accounts. Judgment accordingly went for plain tiff’s, with L 5 14s costs.