MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20283, 16 December 1927, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, December 15. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for the plaintiff was given in the following cases; —Crystal Ice Company v. William Cooper, claim £2 11s sd, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 os-Ad) ; John D. Best v. S. Emmerson (Pembroke), claiip £8 Bs, for clothing ..upplied, with costs (£1 10s 6d); Iron and Steel Company of N.Z., Ltd., v. W. Pope (Alford Forest), claim £1 11s 2d, for goods supplied, with costs (16s); Dickinson’s, Ltd., v. E. G. Allnatt (Qamaru), claim £lB 3s 10d, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 14s); South Island Traders’ Agency, Ltd., v. A. G. Pulowski (Nelson), claim £5 19s 6d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 8s 6d); W. Low v. Gladys Hesse, claim £2 6s, for dental advice and services, with costa (£1 3s 6d). A DISPUTED ACCOUNT. Thomas Burns (Mr W. P. Hartstonge), claimed from A, M'Kay (Mr R. A. King) £7 7s 10d for the balance of an account for electrical work and material provided. —Mr Hartstonge said that M'Kay was building a house in Wakari, and asked Burns to quote for the electrical installation. The latter did so, the price quoted being £24. The job was duly completed, but several extras were included, and charged in the bill. Th e difficulty was to find who authorised Burns to put in these extras. Burns asseited was not the owner of the house, but M'Kay, who had given the authorisation. M'Kay, however, denied this, and it was over these extras that the dispute arose. Accounts were regularly rendered to M'Kay, who never at any time challenged any item in them, even when ha paid instalments ofi them and received receipts indicating the balance owing.—Thomas Bums, an electrical engineer, gave evidence as to the extras put in—four two-way switches and a semi-indirect bowl —and stated that m a conversation with the defendant, it had been agreed that h© should render the account to M'Kay for any extras, so that the latter could charge his percentage on it when rendering the bill to the owner. Accounts, including thes© extras, had been rendered regularly, and the defendant had ne' 3r at any time challenged them. —In defence the defendant stated that he had never at any time authorised the plaintiff to put in the two-way switches and the bowl, and, not having done so, did not feel it incumbent on him to remark on their having been charged in the hill He had not asked Burns to render the account for the extras. —The Magistrate said that the business arrangements on both sides appeared to b© rather loose, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff had been authorised to install the switches and the bowl. He would, therefore, be nonsuited, and ordered to pay solicitor’s fee (£1 Is).