MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16645, 17 March 1916, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thursday, Maeoh 16. (Before Mr.H. Y, Widdoweon, S.M.) Judgment wee- given for plaintiffs, with costs, in the following undefended oases:— Johnston, Sons and 00. v. Norman W. Hastings (Bunny thbrpc), £1 7s Id, balance for book and for extra freight (costs ss); same v. Harry A. Humphreys (Asbburton), 8s costs; H. D. Lajrrjb v. G. A. Hunt (To Houa), £14 16s, for goods (costs 303 6d); Hogg and Co. v. George Findlay (Balfour), £1 8s 4d ; for gooda (costs £2 11s); same v. Claude V. Andrews (Wellinstfon), 8s 9d. for goods (costs 12s); Laidlaw and Gray 4 y. Patrick MTSrla'in (Evans Flat), Its costs; Wfrn. C. Bright v. George Gordon (Obaki). £11 3s 2d, for goods (costs 34s 6d); W. J. Williamson v. William Jepson (Mataianui), £5, amount of a promfeeory note (costs ss); W. Stuart Wilson and Co. v. John C. M'Bride (Queenstowri), £2 3s, for motor requisites (costs 10s). Parson Bros. v. John Charles Smith, claim £1 Oβ 3d, on a judgment summons. In the absence of defendant an order was nrade that ho pay the olaim, wjth costs (ss) forthwith, in default two days' imprisonment. Ellen Frances Cody v. David Hill.—Claim £3 8s 6d on a judgment summons. An order was made that defendant, who did not appear, pay the amount forthwith, in default four days' imprisonment. James Rapson v. Edward J. Waldren.— An application for a variation of the order in this case was granted, defendant being directed to pay the amount owing, £1 6s, in two monthly instalments of 13s. T. E. Sh-el and Co. v. Bryant and Co.— Claim £21 16s 8d in connection with an alleged breach of contract over the delivery of bananas.—Mr Callan appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Hay for defendants.—ln this previously heard case his Worship gave judgment. He reviewed the evidence, and gave judgment* for defendants on_ the grounds that the fruit tendered by plaintiffs had not arrived by the Niagara, and that there was no evidence of defendants' having acquiesced in any substitution of the Kararou for that vessel. That therefore the goods were not those contracted for. Further that, as to time being the essence of the contract, there was no evidence of any trade meaning being attachable to the words of the contract, and that, therefore, they must be given their ordinary and natural moaning in relating to the goods in the fulfilment of the contract. That these should have been ready for delivery on the date mentioned in tho contract—December 20. Judgment was therefore given for defendants, with costs <£2 14s). James Samsnn v. William J. O'Connor, of Moa Crook. —TV claim wns for the payment of £77 17s, made up of £75 due to' plaintiff for valuation of the Moa Creek Hotel, made in May. 1315, inelusivs of valuation fee, motor car hire, umpires' fees and expenses; and £2 17s, for goods sold and delivered.— Mr Wm. C. MarOrcgor, K.C., appeared for plaintiff, and Mr A. C. Hanlon for defendant —Mr MacGregor said that this was an action brought by plaintiff, who was a vainer, against defendant, who had a store and hotel at Moa Creek, for valuing the property. The dispute was as to the first amount, the second being admitted. It was contended by plaintiff that the amount of £75 had been agreed upon, but O'Connor said that there was no agreement. The correspondence would show that plaintiff was asked to go up to value the hotel and store at Moa Creek, and that plaintiff told defendant that ho would not do it for the ordinary fee. and defendant agreed to r>ay him more. The valuation was done very successfully in the interests of defendant. After the business was completed defendant met plaintiff, and agreed to pay the £75, the- ordinary fee being between £50 and £60.—Mr MacGregor then proceeded to. call evidence. —After the luncheon adjournment Mr Hanlon called defendant, and then addressed the court. In thrt course of his remarks he said the original agreement had been that plaintiff was to bo paid on the ordinary scale, plus something extra at the discretion of defendant. Platatiff alleged that there hod been a subsequent agreement for £75. but that woe not so. It was for plaintiff to prove that there' was a subsequent agreement before he conld succeed. His liook entries did .not agreo with his sworn testimony. His Worsh:,j intimated that he would give judgment on Tuesday.