RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7336, 20 August 1885, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, August 19. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) 'Judgment was given for plaintiffs, with costs, m the following undefended cases:—Bentham and Kilpatrick v. \V. Wetherstone, claim £3 5 S sd; Saunders and Co. v. C. Nicholson, £4 16s 7d; N. Burnett v. A. Fqrsyth, £7 E. A. Field v. C. O'Hara.—Claim £11 Us 6d, on a promissory note.—Mr Sinclair appeared for the plaintiff. There was no appearance of defendant.—After evidence the case was adjourned until Friday next, on plaintiff's application M. H. Quayle v. G..F. Stovin.—Claim £2 11s 6d, on a judgment summons.—Mr James appeared for the plaintiff.—After evidence his Worship dismissed the case.

J. Gage and Another v. G. Esther.—Claim £86—Mr A. Bathgate appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr Haggitt for defendant.—Mr Bathgate m opening the case, said this was a claim made by the plaintiffs, who were sharebrokers, for damages for the non-acceptance or the delivery of certain shares bought by the plaintiffs to the order of the defendant. The circumstances out of which the claim arose were as follow. • Mr Esther early in July instructed Mr W. Gage to purchasesooWestport Colliery Company's shares at 10s. The order was subsequently reduced to 250 shares. Mr Gage endeavoured to procure the shares, but found he could not get them at the figure named. He then saw Mr Esther and told him the position of affairs, and said that by waiting he might be able to pick up some shares A day or two afterwards Mr Gage got 250 shares at the price at .which he was authorised to purchase. After he purchased these he sent a notice to Mr Esther in the usual way. Mr Esther telephoned to the office of the plaintiffs on the following day, and stated that he would not take the shares, and that a meeting of the company's shareholders had been held, and the shares were not worth so so much as they had been. Mr Gage replied that he had bought the shares on his (defendant's) account, and that he should take them up, and suggested seeing him in the morning The shares were bought by Mr W. Gage from Mr Grose, another broker. It was customary for brokers to treat one another as principals. For some reason or another, the shares in the Westport Colliery Company fell about this time with considerable rapidity, and there was some difficulty between Mr Esther and Mr Gage in the matter. There was some little delay in the delivery of the shares, and Mr Esther requested |Mr Gago to get him out of the difficulty. Mr I Gage suggested that, by a little waiting, he might be able to do so. At Mr Esther's request, he went to Mr Grose, and intimated that he would not take up the shares without a little delay. The time for delivery had been exceeded, and Mr Grose held Mr Gage to his purchase. The shares came from Melbourne, and the documents arrived through the bank. It turned out that the seller had paid tho amount of call which had been made on the shares, though tho call was not then due. Mr Gage was requested by Mr Grose, the selling broker, .to take delivery of the shares. Mr Esther then went to the bank with Mr Gage to see the documents, but he still refused to take delivery of the shares, but offered to bear part of the loss. Mr Gage subsequently gave notice to Mr Esther that if he did not take delivery of the shares he would sell them and sue him (defendant) for damages. Mr Esther finally decided not to take delivery of the shares, and intimated that Mr Gage could take what course he thought fit. The shares were subsequently sold by Mr Gage at 5s 3d. During the time these negotiations had gone on the shares had risen slightly in the market. Mr Gage, however, was quite willing that Mr Esther should have the benefit of the rise.—Evidence was given by the plaintiffs, A. G. Fenwick, and T. Grose.—Mr Haggitt then submitted that the plaintiffs should be nonsuited on several grounds, the chief ground being that they were acting as principals aud not as agents. The fact of Wm. Gaei having sold the shares with out the authority of the defendant showed that he was acting as a principal.—Evidence having been given by the defendant, his Worship nonsuited plaintiffs, as he was not satisfied from the cviueucb imU'u lur Vt\ Gr.56 lltUl been iC.--^-""--",— an agent of the defendant. ° j