MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18340, 2 September 1921, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, September 1. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in, the following cases:—-Koddeils v. Gteorge T. Oliver, claim £2O 12s, tor ciotning (costs £3 3s); King's Drapery , Company (Invercargill) v, Henry Reid, claim £7 17s Bd, for clothing (costs £1 Us 6d); William Stewart and Co., v. Yow Lee, claim £4 16s sd, for oemfeof ionery (costs £1 4s 6d); Ooulls, Culling, and Co. v. J, H. Mushet (Tmwaid), claim £7 17s 6d, on account rendered (costs £1 11s Gd); J. Sparrow and Sons v. Robert M. Gray (Middlemaroh), claim £l2 4s 6d, for engineering work (costs £2 14s). Tenancy Case.—ln the case George Herbert Smith v. Samuel Alfred Holley, a claim for possession of I4fi South road, Mr Brasoh said possession had been given, and asked tor judgment lor rent (£9) and me_sne profits (£1 &s 8d). —Judgment was given accordingly, with costs (£3 15a). purchase oi a Car.—William Henry Matthews proceeded against Emily Prudence Callender on a claim for £95 ior the purchase of a oar which plaintiff bought on her behalf at a cost oi £G9S finel tiding certain adjustments and sundry expenses), and which was sold later for £ooo.—Mr W. L. Moore appeared for plaintiff, and Mr T. O'Shea for defendant.—Mr Moore said the question was whether Matthews was agent for the purchase of a car or whether he bought it on his own behalf and sold it to Mrs Callender. Before Christmas, 19X0, Matthews and Mrs Callender had a conversation about the purchase of a car. Mrs Callender warned to put hex sou into the taxi business and wished Matthews to get a car lor her. Plaintiff advised nor to get an English oar. A Wolaeley chassis was purchased from M CuUcch a garage lor £303 and

a Orossley body fitted to it by a coachbuilaer named Roberts. Later defendant found, that she could, not realise as much as she expected from her business, and! was unable to pay for the car, so a photograph of it was sent to 'Woods’s garage at Invercargill so that the car might be sold. There was a loss of £95, which was not serious as cars went to-day.—Plaintiff gave evidence, m the course of which he admitted that Mrs Callender’s signature at the foot of the letter sent to Woods’s “looked like his writing,” but so,.d he thought he had handed the pen to her to sign. The letter was posted by her. Wit-

ness explained that ho’’ had gone to Christchurch to try to sell the oar, and that it had been on the rank for a week or two to keep down expenses. He had borrowed money to pay for the car. —Cross-examined, witness said .he usually drove the Governor-General on his visits here, but denied that he had said anything about keeping the car for the Prince’s visit. He denied that he had ever said the car was his;' that Mrs Callender could not have it for loss than £870; and that he had once said he did not know where the car was. IHo would not swear that Mrs Callender* asked him to sign the letter.— George Henry Roberts, part proprietor of the Oakland garage, gave evidence ihat when he asked for payment for the body work Mrs Callender ’ gave him to understand she had authorised Matthews to buy the oar, and that she was sorry she had; not got the money. — Air O’Shea said plaintiff bad driven defendant to Roxburgh to look at a farm and to ether places. He suggested that seeing she was

buying a farm she would be better with a oar ot her own, and subsequently said he could get one for her for £7OO. Defendant said she would take it if it was suitable. In meantime the Prinoe’s visit was due, and apparently plaintiff thought he would sell the car; at an enhanced value after he had driven the Prince in it. Council suggested that plaintiff was originally agent for the purchase of the car, that he had taken on himself to act as principal, and then resumed the old! role when he found he was not going to drive the Prince.—Defendant gave evidence that plaintiff ultimately said ho wanted £B6O for the oar, and told her that he was keeping it for the Prince and ihat after that he would have no trouble in getting big money for it. He offered her hia old one, but witness would not take it, and entered into negotiations for the purchase of another oar. The letter was not written in her house, but was read over to her. Plaintiff asked her for a pen and ink, but she did not know what ho wrote on it. She

did not poet the letter, and did not authorise plaintiff to sign her name.—Cross-examined), witness contradicted what Mr Roberts had

said. Sho wrote to Woods and asked for the letter which plaintiff had written to thorn and for the photograph.—Mr Moore: Dm you not ask for the letter signed by Mrs Callender. —Witness: I asked for tho letter and tho photograph.—Plaintiff, recalled hy the court, said he never asked defendant for £BSO for the car. Ho did say that probably sir© would get a bigger price for the car if the Prince had ridden in it.—Defendant admitted that while plaintiff was at her house with the letter he asked what her address was. (Tho letter had a second street name written, from appearance, at a later date.) — The Magistrate held that Matthews’s evidence had been given fairly. Ho was admittedly an experienced driver and just the kind of man in whose hands an inexperienced person would leave such a matttr. He had admitted that ho thought ho bad written the letter in defendant’s house, but that ho might not have. It was clear tfcat ho had not, but had filled in certain particulars at her house. The evidence of Roberts also corroborated his to a certain extent. Defendant had admitted that she had given plaintiff authority to get the car at o cost of about £7OO, and would take it if suitable. This might mean if approved by someone with authority on her behalf or by plaintiff himself. It was clear to him (the magistrate) that tho matter was left in plaintiff's hands, and that he had ample authority to buy the car.—Mr Moore paid he thought ho could come to an arrangement for a settlement with Mr O’Shea." and the case was accordingly adjourned sine die.