MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18735, 13 December 1922, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, December 12. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Undefended Cases.—Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in tho following cases:—J. and T, Meek v. James M. Carmichael (Clyde), claim £l6B ss, for flour supplied (costs £8 7s); Thomson, Bridger, ana Co. v. C. J, B. Ward,, claim £ll I2s Id. for hoods supplied (costs £3 Is); British General Electric Company v. A. H. Pikett, claim £5, foy heater supplied (costs £1 3s 6d); Wbitcoihbe and Tombs v. E. C. Manchester, claim £2 16s 9d, for stationery supplied (costs £2 7s 6d); John Stevens v. Charles Gardiner (Mosgiel), claim £l9' 12a 6d, for rent due (costs £2 19s); W. Esquilant v. T. Cotton da-ini £5 Bs, for photographs supplied (costs £1 12s 6d); Brown, Ewing, and Co. v. Mark Riddell (Orepuki), claim £ll 7s lOd, for goods supplied'(costs £2 14s); Otago Farmers’ Co-operative Association v. Thomas Cook(Lqngbush), claim £53 13s 2d, for goods supplied (costs £4 19s 6d); A, E. Usherwood v, P. Diserens (Glenhope, Kelson), claim £9 16s Id, for goods supplied (costs £2 8s Gd); Louisa Sima v, John P. A. Corcoran, claim £3- 15s, for board and lodging (costs £1 4s 6d); Dickson-Taylor Shoe Store v. J. Cadman, claim £2 10s 2d, on an account stated (costs £1 3s 6d); Nimmo and Blair (Ltd.) v. James Burns (Wyndham), claim £35 Os Bd, for goods supplied (costs £4 Is 6d); Laidlaw and Gray v. A. W. Mullenger, claim £3O Is, balance of an account for goods supplied (costs £4 6s 6d). Claim for Wages.—Joseph Bray proceeded against James A. Miller for £3B 7s 9d, representing the balance of wages due under an engagement as a ploughman.—Mr Hay appeared for the plaintiff and Mr F. B. Aqanis for the defendant.—The plaintiff, in evidence, stated that he entered tho service of the defendant on September 24, 1920, under an arrangement to receive £l5O a year. Up to July 26, 1921, he received his wages at the rate of £2 10s a week, but from then onwards he received only odd sums ranging up to about £lO. He denied that any arrangement had been made that his wages should be £2 10s instead of £3 a woek.—The defendant, in evidence, said that in May, 1921, tho plaintiff, knowing that conditions in the farming industry were not good, offered to allow Ins wages to be reduced by 10s a week. He had previously made a similar offer' in March, and witness made the reduction operative as from March, at tho same time reducing the price of plaintiff’s meat.—Evidence was given by several witnesses as to a statement made by the plaintiff on several occasions that his wages were £2 10s a week.— The Magistrate said that on the facts he must find in favour of the defendant. The statement of the plaintiff, as sworn to by several of the witnesses, represented recognition -by him of the fact that his wages were £2 10s a week. The only question remaining to be decided was as to the period from which the reduced wages were to run, and on that point he could find no valid’ reason for the defendant making the reduction, retrospective to March. Apart from the amount which had been paid into court (£8 4s Id), judgment would Ire entered for the plaintiff for £3, representing the balance of 10s a week due on his wages for a period of six weeks. , The defendant would also bo ordered to pay the costs, amounting to £1 16s.

Sale of a .Business.—Elizabeth Ann Elliott claimed from Edith Matthews the sum of £6O for misrepresentation. The proceedings arose out of the sale on August 29, 1921, of a fruit shop in Miaola-ggan street, together with all the stock and fittings therein, for the sum of £290. The plaintiff alleged that at the time of the sale the defendant represented that the counter and shelves were among the fittings which she owned, whereas such was not actually the case. Mi- Lousley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Callan for the defendant.—Mr Lousloy stated that since the purchase of the shop the plaintiff Lad been carrying on business there until a few weeks ago, when she decided to sell out. She then discovered that the counter and shelves had not belonged, to the defendant at tho time of the sale, and that therefore they did not belong to her (the plaintiff) now. He asked that the claim should bo amended by tho reduction of the amount to £45. —Evidence as to the negotiations preceding the sale was given by the plaintiff and her' daughter. According to the latter, the defendant told them that •’everything in the shop except the bare wailis went with the sale.”—The defendant, in her evidence, said she had told tho agent who was negotiating tho sale that the counter belonged to the landlord, and that the shelves were in the shop when she took it over. She did not remember telling tho plaintiff that. —Evidence was also given by the agent who had brought about the sale.— The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said ho had a good deal of sympathy for the plaintiff and her daughter, who had received very little assistance from the agent. Ko doubt bis methods were those usually followed in similar circumstances, but ho seemed more concerned about pushing through the sale and collecting his commission than anything else. The evidence put forward on benalf of ,the' plaintiff was very weak, and it was flatly contradicted by that tendered for the defence. He should really give judgment for the defendant, but, in view of tho possibility of other proceedings, ho would non-suit the plaintiff, who would have to pay costs, amounting to £4 is.