The Courts.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1013, 31 July 1891, Page 17

The Courts.

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO,

Wednesday, July 29,

(Before Hia Honor Mr Justice Richmond. EDWARDS V. WaLTON. This was aa appeal from a deci.ion of H W. BrabaDt, Esq., It. U., Palmerston North, on a case stated by him, the parties being unable to agree upon a ease. The ap. pellanfc was the defendant, tho respondent the plaintiff in the Court below. The p’aintiff claimed £2l for work done, «3 agent of the defendant, iu and about a sale of certain property of the defendant. As such agent tho plaintiff had intro inoed a Mr Griffiths to tho defendant, and obtained an offer from him at a prico which, however, the defendant declined. Ihe property was at the same time also iu the hands of Messrs Stevens and Gorton for sale as agents for the defendant, and some time afterwards Mr Griffiths renewed negotiations through them, and ultimately bought tho property of the defen. dant through them. The other facts evffi. ciently appear from tho judgment. The magistrate found that “the plaintiff was entitled to recover something for labour done,” rod gave judgment for the plaintiff for £lO and cast-. Mr Gully cow appealed for the appellant, Mr Skerrett for the respondent. His Honor delivered judgment a 3 follows: Iu this cise the difficulty arises, as it often happens, upon the terms iu which the case is stated. Upon consideration, however, it seems sufficiently plain that I must take the facts as found by the Magistrate to be contained in tho following paragraph :—“lt is proved, however, that at the interview defendant informed plaint-ff that the properly was iu tiro hands of Messrs Stsvsns and Gorton for sale, but that he (plaintiff) was at liberty to sell it, or part cf it, if he could; that defendant gave plaintiff apian, aud instructed him to write to Mr Griffiths ; that plaintiff thereupon corresponded, and had several interviews with Mr Griffiths, and also took an offer of £lO per acre from Mr Griffiths to the defendant, which offer was declined. ’ I think it appears from that sufficiently that the defendant below (Mr Edwards) meant to give plaintiff the chance of earning a commission by effecting a sale if he could, hut that nothing was said about the plaintiff introducing a purchaser apart from his effecting a sale. If Stevens and Gorton effected a sale they would get a commission, if Walton did ho would ; to that and to no more did Mr Edwards plodge hirer.rdf. The actual event was that Mr Griffiths, who was introduced by Walton, did not purchase through Walton, but after some interval of time purchased through Stevens aud Gorton. Walton, in point of fact, did not succeed in getting Griffiths to affer a prico which the vendor deemed adequate. The conclusion which tha Magistrate seems to have come to “that :he plaintiff did so introduce Mr Griffiths ;o the defendant that the relation of buyer ind seller was brought about ” is to be re;srded, not as a finding of a fact, but as an nference from the facts already found. I Link it is a false inference—false, I mean, n logic. The relation of buyer aud seller vas really brought about by Messrs Stevens aid Gorton. Appeal allowed, with costs, 15 ss.

His Honor the Chief Justice held a sit. tiug of the Divorce Court on Monday after noon, and heard the petition of Catherine Harper for judicial separation from her husband on tho grounds of alleged cruelty, and keeping her without means of support. Mr Jellicoe appeared for the petitioner, and the respondent, who is a convict serving a sen. tence, appeared in charge of a warder, but was not represented by counsel. Tbe petitioner gave evidence and stated the respondent had been a policeman, greengrocer, etc., but had lost his several situations owing to his drunken habits. He had, she said, frequently beaten her whilst drunk, and had been imprisoned in consequence. The witness gave other evidence of cruelty, and the Chief Justice granted a decree for judicial

separation, giving the custody of the children _t, hree —to the wife. At the request of Mr Jellicoe the questions of the maintenance of the children aud alimony were reserved until suoh time &b the husband shall be in a position to contribute in accordance with the order of the Court. Judgment in the divorce case of Dunes v. Dimes was given by Hi 3 Honor Mr Justice Richmond on Wednesday. His Honor stated that he had delayed giving judgment, only on account of the evidence having been taken on several different occasions. The delay had not been owing to any doubt as to the judgment. He was of opinion that the adultery of the respondent with the co-respondent, Owen, had been proved by the confession of the wife to her husband, and which had been corroborated by the evidence of Mrs Quaintance and Lee. He disbelieved the respondent’s denial, and he discredited the case of condonation set up. He did not think a sufficient case had been made out of the alleged adultery with MeArteney, whose conduct was, however, suspicious. Ihe petition against him would therefore be dismissed. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute at the first Bitting after the expiration of three calendar months. Costs were allowed the wife at £25 and disbursements. The petitioner was repre* sented by Mr Skerrett, and the respondent by Mr Devine. Judgment in the case of Tanner v. The Northern Investment Co., with regard to the accounts, was given on Wednesday by Mr Justice Richmond in favour of the plaintiff, for £*>4s lbs Sd, aud costs. Sir Robert Stout (Instructed by Mr Levi) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr H. D. Bell (instructed by Mr P. S. McLean, of Napier) for the defendant company. . . The recent cas9 of Jamieson versus Raine and another, regarding the leasing of the freehold property and appurtenances, known as the Masonic Hotel, in Cuba street, has been satisfactorily arranged, and is now out of Court. Mr Jamieson, on 23rd of this month, completed an agreement for the sale of the property to Messrs Staples and Co., Limited, for the sum of £4500 ; and we ore authorised to state that the sal© has been completed, the property handed over, aud the price above mentioned paid to the veuBeforeMr Justice Richmond on Wednesday afternoon, the appeal case of the Bank of Australasia v. the inhabitants of the lianawatu Road District, was commenced. The point at issue i 3 whether the Road Board is liable for interest on their bank account after it has been closed by the appointment of a receiver. Judge Kettle, who heard the case at Palmerston North, decided that the Board was not liable. On the application of Mr Hislop, who appeared for the appellants, the case was adjourned till Monday week. Mr Jellicoe appeared on behalf of the Board.