MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 5381, 14 September 1904, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER, 13. (Betcro Dr A. McArthur, S.AI.) POLICE CASES. Jehu Cummins, alias Denis Devine, was fined Ml, in default seven days’ imprisonment, for a second offence of drunkenness. John McKinnon, similarly charged, was dealt with in like manner. William Henry Hi.slop, aged sixtyeight years, pleaded guilty to a charge ol having stolen a book (value yd), tho properly of Whittaker Bros., retail booksellers. Tho police evidence showed that accused was a. vagrant. His Worship thought it would to a kindness to the old man to send him to prison. A sentence of ono month, without hard labour, was imposed. William Cotter, who had disobeyed an order of tho Court to pay 7s (id per weak towards tho maintenance of his illegitimate child, admitted the failure, and stated his intention to do batterin the future. Arrears had mounted to Lot 2s on July 13th. It was stated that defendant had lately passed a term in gaol for disobedience of the Coui't’s order. His Worship adjourned the present information until October 10th, go that defendant might prove tho bona tides of his promised amendment. A JUVENILE ROVER. Arthur Hopkins, eleven years of age, was brought before tho Court charged with having been found wandering at Otaki, and with having no home or settled place of abode. Constable McCann, of Otaki, gave a history of the lad’s doings as detailed by himself. Born in New York, ho was left motherless when four months old, and he fared like most motherless children. When aged seven ho was taken to London to live with his grandmother.' His father married again, and the new wife took young Hopkins hack to America to live with her. The second Airs Hopkins did not live long, and soon after her death young Hopkins was put in a charitable homo, where he remained for two years. Tlio lad was put there because his brothers liad taken a dislike to him. Hopkins remained in tho homo for two months, and then liis nncle took him away to England, whence he sailer! for New Zealand in 1902. The uncle settled in Palmerston North as a billiardmarker. About Christmastide 1902 ho handed the lad over to some Maoris living at Ohan. Young Hopkins had remained there ever since until Saturday last, when ho wandered to Otaki, slept in a ’bus there, and then went to To Ore to look for work. Ho was wandering around the settlement, when Constable McCann took him into custody. After some discussion had taken place between tho Magistrate and SubInspector O’Donovan respecting some incidents not included in the lad’s story that require elucidation, his Worship adjourned tha case until Monday next to allow the police to make further investigations. CIVIL BUSINESS. - By default of defendants, judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following cases;—Wellington Traders’ Agency v. William Francis Greenaway, £25 9s 9d, costs £2 14s; Skerrett and Wylie v. Robert O. Crowther, £1 Its Gd. costs os; Patrick Mackin v. Henry O. Brandt, £3 3s, costs 10s; Percy William Skelley v. Alexander Sutherland, £2, costs 7s; John Edward Butler v. Thomas William Steele. £2 9s 9d, costs os, ENGAGING A COOK. 'Herman Knigge, a cook, sued Frank A. Ren wick for £2 10s. Air Hindmanli, counsel for plaintiff, said his client was sent to defendant, (of the Coronation Boarding-house, Plimmer’s Steps) ’by a local registry-offroe-keeper, who had been instructed to secure defendant a cook at 25s a week. He was engaged on a Saturday, and told to coma again on Monday. He went np on Monday and saw the mistress of the house, who told him lie would not he wanted, as the old cook had stopper! on, and that “ho had only been leaving because ho had had a bit of a row with the girl, and he had made it up since Saturday.” Plaintiff now claimed 25s (a week a wages), and 255,, in lieu of a week’s notice. Air Smith, who appeared for defendant, contended that Knigge had not been engaged by defendant. The sending of Knigge to defendant by the registry-offico-kceper did not constitute an engagement, and there had been no engagement of Knigge made by Mrs Renwick, who was tho proprietress of the establishment.. After evidence had been given, his Worship said he was satisfied that ■ Knigge had been practically engaged by defendant and his wife; there was no doubt whatever that Knigge on the Saturday had been told to come hack on tho Monday. Tho second week’s claim could not be allowed, but judgment would bo for plaintiff for £1 os, and 18s costs. BUILDER’S EXTRAS. Parsons and Brown sued William Jones for £9 6s sd. Air A. R. Atkinson appeared for plaintiffs, a nr! Air T. AI. Wilford for defendant. , The dispute was ono concerning “extras” and “allowances” in respect of a. house in the Hntt Valley, erected for defendants by plaintiffs. After evidence had been given by each side, his Worship reserved judgment for a week. DIVORCED WIFE’S BUTCHER’S BILL. Judgment in tho case of William John Garrett 'v. Emma Spring was entered for defendant. Tho claim was ono for £4 12s 7d against ! a married woman for goods supplied. His Worship’s judgment, set out that defendant had been dealing with tho plaintiff for three and a half years, and until December 3rd, 1903, she was living with her husband, On that date, having obtained

decree nisi, she ceased to live wit!) her hu.-band. but conlinucd to deni with the plaintiff. Since that time the had contracted an account tor goods to ;ho amount of £6 2s. and had paid £0 5.-, livery married woman residing with her husband, and having tho genera! management of his homo and household affairs, was presumed to bo his general agent in all matters connected with the domestic economy of the hon.-o and family. As a married woman was able to contract as il she was <■ femme solo, a question arose whether credit was given to her as her husband”; agent or nut. If exclusive credit was given to her, her separate estate would ho liable. There was no evidence watover showing that exclusive credit, was given. .Is defendant had paid a sum equal to tho amount of tho debt contracted by her, judgment would ha for defendant, with costs (£1 Is), Air Bolton was counsel For plainlii’, and Mr Levi for defendant. INTKRKSTING COMMERCIAL CASE.

.Judgment for the plaint iff company was given in tho case of the “Now Zealand Time;;” v. Hans Hoffeins, an action recover £l7 for an advertising card in Iho “New Zealand limes” newspaper from May 9th to December Bth, 1903. His Worship said defendant, in January. 1903, entered into partnership with ona Ernest Alfred Wakoman, trading as WalvOinun and Co., hotel brokers, 'Wanganui. On December Btli. : .J, AVakenuin and Co. had entered into a contract with to insert an advertisement in the “Times” lor “twelve months, and until countermanded.” This contract, was signed by both parties, and was without doubt a contract for twelve months, and until countermanded after that period. The agreement of partnership between tlio defendant and AVake.ham provided that neither cf tho parties should bo responsible for the liabilities cf tho other, outside tlio debts of the partnership, preceding January 12th, 1903. Payments cn account of the advertisement were made in April and June. During tlio month of Alay Wakebam and Co. required some concession in reference to tho advertisement. This was not granted, and tho firm, by letter cn Alay 25th, gave notice that they considered tho contract cancelled as from April 30th. Defendant Hoffeins, by letter of August 14th, wrote that “Even if Air Wako-ha-m had contracted for twelve months, we are not responsible for his liabilities, as tho present firm of Hoffeins and Wakoham took over the business from Wakelmm on January 12th ult., and We aro not in any way liable.” Defendant had been more than seven months a member of tho firm when ho wrote this letter, in which he states that they cancelled the advertisement and repudiated any further liability in the matter after the end of' April, when he had been four months a partner. It was only when plaintiffs declined to alter the terras of tho contract that tho question of repudiation arose. Tho new linn continued to receive tho benefit of the advertisement for four months before any complaint was made, and two payments, totalling £l2, were made during the existence of the new firm, and before there was any word of repudiation. Counsel tor the defence had drawn the Court’s attention to clauses 4 and 5 of the agreement between tlio parties, whereby it was provided that tho parties should not be responsible for liabilities of each other previous to the date of agreement. It was contended that there was no piesumption that the drafts were paid -by tlio firm, and that it'was only fair to presume that they were paid from' moneys belonging to Wafceham. Til liis Worship’s opinion, however, looking at all tho circumstances cf the correspondence, it was but fair to presume that the drafts were paid with moneys belonging to the firm. For tho defence it had been argued that this was not a case of novation, inasmuch as tho original debtor had never been released from his liability. Ho would admit -this; hut he. considered it a question of the liability or non-liability, as the case might be, of a new member of a firm for tho debts of the old firm. His Worship found it laid down in Wilson v. Lewis (2 sc. N.R. 118) that if a bill was accepted on account of a debt which was incurred partly before and partly after a new partner joined the firm ha was liable for so much of tho'debt for which tlio bill was accepted as accrued subsequently to his accession to the partnership. Again, where a firm was newly constituted, but no alteration was made in tho business, and the accounts were continued in the old hooks, and the existing liabilities were- discharged from tho assets of the old firm or from the funds of the new firm indiscriminately, it was hold that this was cogent evidence that the new firm had assumed tho liability to pay tho debts of the old firm. (Bank of Australasia v. Flower). Defendant in the present case entered tho partnership about a month after' the contract was entered into ; he know that he was receiving tho benefit of the contract . . . and, moreover, his expression, “AAte cancelled tho contract,” appeared to his AVorship to imply that : defendant had accepted it np to the, time he wrote those words. Judgment would be for plaintiffs, with £4 9s costs. Air Treadwell, counsel for defendant, was granted leave to appeal. Mr Aten Haast was counsel for plaintiffs.”