CITY POLICE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 5563, 14 April 1905, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

THURSDAY, APRIL 13. (Before Dr A. McArthur, S.M.) For drunkenness Henry Thbmas, William Wilson, Thomas Young, and William Mileaugh were fined os each, ha default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. CIVIL BUSINESS. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in tho following cases;—The Public Trustee v. Mrs Joseph J. B. Blackraore, £ll 8s Id, costs IGs; the National Hat Mills Company v. Henry T. Sears, £ll IGs Gd, costs £1 10s Gd ; Bates and Lees v. Patrick Ryan, £l2, costs £1 10s Gd ; Walsh and Co. v. Mary Black, £3 4-s sd, costs 6s; J. Taylor V. Hannah Griffiths, £2 10s Gd, costs 10s. In tho judgment summons case Donald and Kdenborough v. Duncan Campbell, a debt of £ll Os Bd, debtor was ordered to pay forthwith, in default seven days’ imprisonment, warrant to be suspended until May Ist. C. J. Smith, who was indebted to L. Hansen for £3 15s, was ordered to pay forthwith, in default seven days’ imprisonment, warrant to be. suspended until the 27th inst. IN THE MATTER OF A BOND. Tho case of tho Empire Loan and Discount Co.. Ltd., v. Harry Ronald Bates and others, a c ! aim for £O7 7s 3d under a bond was called again. Mr Wilford for defendants, moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that tho company before it could recover damages should prove broach by defendant of tho bond. Mr Kirkcaldic, for tho company, contended that tho suit was only for tho actual loss, and not for tho penalty sum due upon the bond. His Worship dismissed tho application for a nonsuit, and the case was further adjourned until tho ISth inst. A CASE OF EGGS. Judgment was given .in tho case of Thompson Bros. v. George Pinnock, a claim for £35 7s Bd. alleged to bo the balance owing to defendant for eggs supplied, and a counter-claim for £SO as damages for broach of .warranty. Tile two questions to be decided in the judgment of the Magistrate are, first, was a guarantee or warranty given by plaintiffs’ traveller as to the merit or value of tho eggs, and, second, did the defendant deal with the plaintiff as principal or as an agent for an undisclosed principal. The answer to the first question is that there was a sale by sample and a guarantee. As to tho second question, tho Magistrate was of opinion that tho plaintiffs, through their traveller, sold as principals, and cotild not protect themselves by pleading that they were agents only, and had paid over tho proceeds to their principal. Judgment was given for Thompson Bros, on tho claim (£3o 7s Sd) and for Pinnock on tho counterclaim (£SO). Mr Ward appeared for plaintiff and Mr D. Findlay for defendant.

A PROPERTY CASE. William George Somerville sued George William Smart for £l6 rent under an agreement, or damages for broach of contract in connection with certain property at tho Lower Hutt. Judgment was reserved until the 18th inst. Mr Luckie appeared for defendant. A COMMISSION DISPUTE. Alfred George Manthel sued William Henry Bryant for £25 as his share of the commission on tho sale of a' property. Evidence for.plaintiff was that he, with defendant, agreed to divide £SO, which was offered as commission by John Curran to whoever could procure him a certain property recently purchased by the Rev Van Staveren at £6OO above the original price. The defence was that Bryant had practically completed the purchase of the property for Curran before the appearance of Manthol. There was no agreement to divide the, commission. Judgment was reserved until the 30th inst. Mr Weston appeared for plaintiff and Mr Quick for defendant. RETENTION OF GOODS. Ethel Chong sued Charlie Yoimg Sing for clothing valued at £S, which she claimed to have left in his possession, and which he had since refused to give un. Tho defence was that some of the articles in the claim never belonged to plaintiff, and others were never /in his possession. The Magistrate made an order for the articles which defendant admitted having in his possession and £3. Plaintiff was also allowed costs.