MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13665, 7 August 1906, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Mo:;my, August G. (Before Mr C. C. GraJimn. S.M.) Judgment !>y default, with cost.", whs given in iho cases: — Johnsiou, Sons, and Co. v. Frederick Evans (Cliristcliurch), claim CI -Is, books supplied (cos'.'} ii-l; Guthrie, Brown, and Co. v J- 1 . (!r:fli!lis /Alexandra Smtflit, <!aiiii £;,S l.i?, amount due en promissory noles, '.villi interest thereon (costs ■£J ss); D.I.C. v. John Rogers (Pa'ni'orsloii Xorlli), claim £10 17s 7d, halaneo due as endenoe of p! note ami interest thereon (ces)s i'l,lo.- 1 Oil), Oswald C'catos v. Victor Hichar.lson (ljniigbiirn), claim £3 la 3d. on a pioaissnrv nolo (cosl* IO3): T>cu?ltt<i Bros. v. Thomas C'aM'ehr.'.v, claim X 3. balance due for goxls supplied-fcosts 10s); Wil'iam Wright and (.'O. (Ud.) v. Frederick B. Robinson (Tinwald), claim ID 5',, en r.n unpaid cheque (ensU XI 3.1 Ml' Public Trustee in Appi""Rte's Trust v. George Os> K (C?vcr?.ii;im). claim £1 103 £d bn'aiu-e due 011 vent 0! col!a»o (costs. 1 ;!); I!. S. Tonkinsoi snd Co. v. LoncH Itomey ( ijctbiirpb). claim £G 1??, ba't'i'c? due io- lueye'e, e'e supplied (costs /; 1 ;>? o<i). Arthur Hr.-nefl v. .Tohn ITeily (Aleya"'dni South),—Claim £2 1 Is, anioni' d'le on a j>'d»mcnt summons.—>'r Macro for v-'"f"i>ff.— A'wmnt to be paid forthwith, in dcfnu'l seven days' imrrisonme:- 4 .

Ti,c«r snd Co. r. Maggie Con!TTfM (Cnr^lchurcliK—Cliijm £] coninuVion due On sale of a grccery business in Frederick street, Dttnedin for tile stun of £100 10s. which plaintiff! claimed wr.s sold to William "mo't lltislcin throiii'h l "l>eir instnitn^faWv—Mr A. -Vl.«ste fe r p'cintiffs. and Mr K-?'i» 'or defendant.—Mr Bathgate said that ha J carried on a small business in Duredin. She went to Christehurch. leaving her lister in charge of Hit* business, and gave her instructions to find k purchaser. The sister Hpoko to plaintiffs' traveler, through whose instrumentality a purchaser was found and 0 Kile effected. On plaintiff" sending in en account for commission defendant radiated tho claim, tyi fho ground Unit her lister liad 110 rwtWity to arrange the maltcr.-Mr F.msiie, Jor defendant, contended that the business bed not i.»en p'need bv defendant or a»vmie appointed 011 her behalf in the hands of plaint iff.i for disposal, and. further, that plain--Ijtfs were not (".'lnmiSfiou agents. mid that their traveller (Mr Mercer), in mentioning t'ie fact to (lie purchaser that the business" was for disposal, merely acted as commercial lravc-1-Irrs sfCMiertilly act. and that in s.ueh c?*e« 110 charge 0! any kind was made, He further "'l'fiucd thai n letter sent by Tucker and Co. thfl pureh'Hi'i- (Mr Buskin) wa.s sent only neceuso plajutifTs had previously sold n ]iroperty for bini, and in doinp this Mie plaiirtiffs were nctin B in tho intere»ts of the purchaser fnd not of tho seller. —A. Mercer gave evidence 0--. to his firm being instructed lo sell the business, and stated that he hod sent n 11 umber of persons to look at it, inc'uding the ]>urnhii?er (Mr Buskin). Ife also slated that it W!I3 the regular nntcliee of !,i« firm, where 11 business was disposed of through their s'nt-iu'V, to make a claim for commission.— liefendftiit stafed fba-t she had not placed the l)H«inc?s in jilmntjll's luinds for s#!o. and that the sa'e h«d been comnWtd by J[r Chevne, »nd not by plnintiffs!—^\V E. Buskin also R «ve evidence, nud stated that he went to look at the business as (he result of a letter received "from plaintiffs, but thai the purchase of the Inisineos was completed through Choyne and Co,—Judgment was for the amount ckiined, with .CI 12s costs,