RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
Thursday, 20th January. (Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) Asher Phillips v. Joseph J. Cox.—Claim L 8 Is, damages for the wrongful detention of cer tarn goods.—Mr Denniston appeared for the plaintiff, for whom judgment was given, with COBIB.
Bmg, Harris, and Co. v. J. B. Anderson and another.—Claim 19i 2:3, balance of account due for goods supplied.— Mr Howorth appeared for the plaintiff a, for whom judgment was given, with coats.
Robert Murray v. the Caledonian Society of Otago.— Claim L 33, money had and received by the defendants on behalf of the plaintiff, and damages for breach of agreement.—Mr Denniston appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Haggitt for the defendants. —Kobert Murray stated that he purchased the " sole right," according to the agreement produced, of selling fruit and coffee at the late Caledonian sports from the defendan,t*f°r L 33. He afterwards sold the right to Mr Eliott for L 43. Mr Eliott had refused to pay that sum to witness, for, as he himself noticed Messrs Inglis and Benjamin were also allowed to sell fruit. The former was actually giving fruit away.—Cross-examined: Inglis and Benjamin were selling fruit in booths. Mr Watson, the secretary of the Society, told Inghs to de&ist from selling the fruit, but he refused.—George Watson, secretary for the defendant Company, said that a stall was annually reserved for Benjamin. It was mentioned, witness knew of his own knowledge, at the auction sale that one stall was to be reserved for Benjamin.—This was the casa for the plaintiff.—Mr Haggitt submitted there was no case to answer. The contention pat torward by the plaintiff was so absurd that it required no answer. All the Society agreed to daiwhen selling this sole right was that it would sail no right to any other person. The Society aid not undertake to hinder any other person from wrongfully selling; it did not undertake to forcibly eject any such person. It might subject itself to nil sorts of pains and penalties « "did so.—His Worship: You say the bnyer o£ the right is let on the ground for a particular purpose, and that he buys the right to protect himself to prevent others from acting similarly. —Mr Haggitt: No, no.—His Worship : But you are not bouud to protect him.—Mr Hag9iV v Bay we are not b°nnd to protect him. All that we say to the buyer of the right is this, your Worship : that we will give no one else the rigat; but we do not say that if anyb(Kjy> of his own wrong, goes to sell fruit aHd coffee we will hinder that person or protect the buyer of the right.—His Worship :I s there any implication ?—Mr Uaggitt: Neither is there any implication. I submit it would be stretching things ton fearful extent if it was held that the Society had to proceed against any wrongdoer. Anybody who sells fruit wrongfally on the ground does no injury to the Society, but would be liable in an action brought by the buyer of the right. Ihere is no breach of contract on the part of the Society unless it actively assists in the infringement of the right—Mr Denniston replied, submitting that it was the duty of the Society to protect tho right it sold. —Mr Maggitt: I think I can answer my learned friend in a word. I shall ask your Worship to assume that instead of tho sale being one of privileges, it had been a sale of tho gate-money Suppose a little boy climbed over the fence and got into the ground, would the purchaser of the gate-money be entitled to sue the Society for the amount he give for the purchase of bis right? —After some further argument had taken place, W. C. Kirkcaldy, the president of the Society, was called, and gave evidence as to it being explained at the auction eaie that only the right to sell fruit outside of the booths was sold. The plaintiff heard what was said lhe Society did its utmost to protect Mr Murray, and turned Mr Inglis' men (ff the ground.—The plaintiff, recalled, said he never heard anything said about the right of selling fruit being limited to the outside of ths booths! —His Worship reserved judgment.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ODT18810121.2.18
Bibliographic details
Otago Daily Times, Issue 5913, 21 January 1881, Page 3
Word Count
711RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Otago Daily Times, Issue 5913, 21 January 1881, Page 3
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.