MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12393, 1 July 1902, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

JCoinHV, Jun« 90.' ; (Before 1 Mt E. H, Carew, s!m.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs, bfdefjuU, in the following cases ;-Day Dawn Gold Dredging Company v. Edward Delnrgy (Wailsaia)/ £6 6s for calls (coats 23s 6d) J H. Wise and Co! v. Theodora Harisen (Clinton), £2 2s for adyertißing and New Zealand lMrtctbjy (fdsla 10m j same v, Geo, Robinson (Paluatua), £3 fo* "U'ortWng. (costs l°s)j same v. Jamis .ty Mlddlatftn (Mtliain), £& is for advertising, ftnd a copy of Now Zealand Directory (coats 23» fld)j Lees Ferry Gold Dr'edgihg Company v, William Gray (Auckland), 125 foe calls on 600 shares (iosts £2 14»J; Cplden United' Dredging Company v, William Baker'Appleby (Oematu), £68 calls on 75 aliarcs (costs £3 8b), Mr Sim fot the plaintiff company; Golden Elbow Gold Dredging Company v. Stevenson Pwaon (Wellington), ISO for calls.—Judgment for £10, ft payment having bten made since the Issuing of tho summons (coats 28s 6d). United Morvcn Gold Dredging Company v. Henry George ,Biedober6.-Cla!n> iIG 0110 judgment summons,—There bring no evident# of anility to, pay, tho ciu was dismissed, .. ■ The Liquidator of the Otago. Trawling .and Distributing Compahy v. Louin Laftroneo (Pott £5, balance due,for goods--Judgment for plaintiffs, for whom Mr Moor? appeared, fot the sum claimed, with, edits (Us). ... s '

W. A. Scott v. George Martin (Henley).— Claim £210s fld for bicycle repairs.—Judgment for plaintiff, with coatß (21n).—Mr Mooro for plaintiff, . J. Eraitliwaitev. John H. King (Pembroke).— Claim £1 8s 2d for goods.—Judgment for pluintiff, with coito (6a). . J. Collins and Sons v. Robert Lockie (Logan's Point).—Claim £1 4s fot boots and Judgment for plaintiffs, for whom Mr Mooro appeared, with costs (0s).

Dr R. Si Stephenson v. Peter "A. LjMorn (Motnington).—Claim £1 Is for professional aorvlces,—Judgmont for plaintiff, with coslb (Os). . • Butterworth Bros. v. Edwin J. Ferguso)} (Woslpflit).—Claim £58 16s' 8d for goods.— Judgment for plaintiffs lor. the sum claimed, with costs (£3 Is). Mr Cooke for plaintiffs. Bing, Harris, and Co. v. Patrick Welsh (Riverton).—Claim {32 14s 6d for gotfds.—Judgment was givon for plaintiffs, for whom Mr Brown-Durie appeared, for the amount claimed, with costs (£3 Is). I John Boid Mid Sons v. George Adams'.— Claim £27 10s' commission on the aalo of a property in High Btreet.—Mr C. J,'Payne appeared (ot plaintiffs, and Mt A. Jamea for defendant.—ln tliis oreviously-hcard case his Worship gave judgment as follows:— '' Tho main facta m this caao art much like tlioas in Hinchey v. Keam (J6 1 Rep, 333). There a commission agent had found a pro* bablc purchaser, but bfforo ho could make & binding contract >tho principal revoked his authority to sell, and it was held h6 was acting Within his rights unless ho did so in ordorto deprive the agent of his commission. Mr Jus : tice Williams said; 'Tho question in tho case seems to be whether the negotiation for tho aalo was compkto so'fir m Ream was coneernsd. [ If it was, then Kcam would be entitled to | recover. If it was not. then Hinchey would : have been wit'iir. his tignts in revoking Keam'a authority. I liavo been unable to find any case where a person, acting as a commission agent, has been held entitled to recover either commission on sale or in a quantum meruit by i reason of his authority being revoked before ' completion unless the agent has' previously . dono what ho was bound to do.' In the present case tho property was placod in plaintiffs' hands for sale. Mr Cox, alter unsuccessfully | trying to negotiate for the purchase, first through Mr Goldsmith and then through Sicvwright Bros., approached tho plaintiffs, irnil tho most that can bo said is timt negotiations wete •in progress which might lmve ended in li purchase but.foi tho' defendant withdrawing thn property from sale. So far tho two cascs s.re on tho same footing, but thero is r. distinction in this respect, that a couple of months after tho property was withdrawn from plaintiffs Mr, Cox, who was their probable purchaser at that tiljio, purchased the property through Sievwright Broa. There is nothing, however, to show that thero was any trick in withdrawing tho property to escape payment of commission or to give it to anothtr commission agent, or that the subsequent sale was in any way brought about by the plaintiffs' efforts, and it is alto an important consideration that the property was not brought under Mr Cox'b notice by tho plaintiffs. The fact is, the defendant's mind about selling was a changeable one; at one time he wanted onf price, at another a larger price, tind at one time ho wanted to sell, at another time he did not. The case is almost identical with Hinchoy v. Ream, and on the authority of that caao defendant had a light to withdraw. Judgment for defendant with costs of court, 3r, witness, 10s; ptofes- ! sional coats, 'On ' The Mnyo' ftKwilloM, and Citizens 6f Dunodin v. TU«i\» (South Duncdin),—ln I this cas? l*«« C«r|rt!utiou sued defendant | for £17. WhigMg' Ihvt had negligently alI toiirftJ tn f»t<t «rv«so oollision with the

horses drawing a tramear, and thereby caused tho death of one of the horses attached to the tramear, and injury to another. Hie- horse killed was valued at £15, end the loss of the services of the other was set down at 12.—Th# circumstances were that about 8 o'clock on -the evening of the 7th May flavin M'Knight wa» limine o tramear from Caversbam to town, and when at Duncan atrcet, South Dunedrn, t V ?" 1 bc! °ng Mr Smith, collided with the horses in the tramear, causing two of the thrco horses m it to fall down. One of these was so badly injured about the epino that ' ' <° to destroyed. The other was taken' o th. stables and laid up for a fortnight, and ' the f3 claimed was in reaped of the low of theservices of this animal.-Mr F. R. Chapman appeared for the City Corporation and Mr Solo- ' mon for defendant.-The greater part of t'no. day ! win taken up in hearing evidcnco in support M the plaintiffs case, and at 4.30' p.m. Mr' Chapman suggested an adjournment, at he < "ad still inoro evidence to call, and the <•«« • could not bo finished that afternoon.-Mr Solomon said he did not propose to go into the merits of tho case. It was a quution of law; and lie was only going to call. Mr Smith.-The case wa» adjourned to tho 4th inst.