MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21103, 13 August 1930, Page 15

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, August 12. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) a UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given for the plaintiff in the following undefended cases:—A. Clearwater v. D. Roberts, claim £1 5s 4d, balance on goods supplied, with costs (14s); Dunedin Electric Sales Agency, Ltd., v. J. Reinke, claim £4 2s fid, for goods supplied, with costs (23s 6d); GE. Wallace v. Carl Robertson, claim £lO 14s lid, for goods supplied, with costa (£2 10a) j Neill and Co. v. W. G. Clark, £8 Os sd, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 13s 6d); W. Harris and Son, Ltd., v. D. Hutchison, claim for coats only (£1); Denby Terry v. Alice Scott, claim £7, rent of flat, with costs (£1 11s 6d). JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Alfred E. Laney was proceeded against on a judgment summons by Otago Farmers’ Co-operative Association. — Judgment debtor was ordered to pay the amount of the claim (£5), with costs (12s), forthwith, in default six days’ imprisonment. Denys Davy proceeded against Eric John Hanley on a judgment summons, defendant being ordered to pay the amount owing (£4 6s 4d), with costs (9s), forthwith, in default five days’ imprisonment. John Watson, Ltd., proceeded against S. Lloyd on a judgment summons,—The defendant was ordered to pay the claim (£1 2s), with costs (7s), forthwith, in default one day’s imprisonment.— George Wishart proceeded similarly against the same judgment debtor on a claim for £1 16s fid, with costs (7b). — The magistrate ordered imnfediate payment, in default two days’ imprisonment. JUDGMENT IN COMMISSION CASE. The magistrate delivered his reserved judgment in the case in which Benjamin Augustus Berry claimed from Cooke, Howlison, and Go. the sum of £3OO, alleged by him to be commission payable to him by the defendant company. —The defendants entered a counter-claim for £4O, which sum covered an excess payment on a traded-in car, damage to one of the firm’s cars, and wrongful use of one of defendants’ vehicles.—Mr E. J. Anderson appeared for the defendants, and Mr G. T. Baylee for the plaintiff.— ' The magistrate said he had found little in the evidence to substantiate the claim made by the plaintiff, iwhereas there was much to the contrary. The position as put forward by the plaintiff was completely denied by the defendant company, the managing director of which had clearly shown that no salesmen had ever been engaged by the defendant company on the terms claimed by the plaintiff. There was a good deal of support for the position as set out by the de- . fendants. It was not conceivable that a complete stranger could come into the firm and be engaged on better terms than the company’s best salesmen. After traversing the significant features of the evidence the magistrate said he had no hesitation in accepting the position as put forward by the defendant company. Judgment would be given for the defendants, with court costs (£3), witnesses’ expenses (£1 8s), and solicitor’s fees (£ls). In respect to the counterclaims the magistrate said that the only thing about which he was at all doubtful was the claim for £4. This was in connection with a trip to Lawrence made by the plaintiff in one of the defendants’ cars. Such a trip aeemer unreasonable for the purposes of demonstration, but ho thought the plaintiff-should have the benefit of the doubt. Judgment on the counter-claim would, therefore, be for £45 for the defendant company, with court costs (£1 10s), witnesses’ expenses (14s), and solicitor’s fee (£3 3s). AN ARCHITECT'S FEES. Henry M'Dowell Smith, for whom Mr A. G. Neill appeared, proceeded against James Shaw Campbell, Alexander Campbell, and Samuel Campbell, who were represented by Mr W. D. Taylor, to recover the sum of £126 ss, the balauco of an amount due to him for professional services rendered in respect to proposed improvements to a city property by tie defendants.—Mr A. G. Neill, outlining the circumstances of the case, said that the defendants decided in June, 1928, to effect certain improvements to property held by them in the city. Specifications for the job were drawn up and tenders were invited and received. However, the defendants then decided not to continue with the work. Smith now sought to recover the amount of his professional fees, which had been computed on the basis of 4 per cent, of tho lowest tender, and which totalled £BS. In addition, he claimed the sum of £3 expended on advertising, In August, 1028, the defendants offered him £34 15s on this account, an amount which he accepted on the express understanding that the work would be proceeded and that he should be engaged to draw up the plans and specifications. In June, 1920, the plaintiff was again instructed by the defendants to draw up the necessary plans and specifications. Tenders were again invited and received, but once again the work was not gone on with, the defend ants stating that their finances would not permit of the necessary expenditure. For this second engagement plaintiff claimed the sum of £73, which was 4 per cent, of the lowest tender received. This with the balance unpaid on the previous plans made up the amount of the claim. Mr Neill explained that there was rib actual contract in regard to the amount that should be paid for. plaintiff’s services, but there was ample precedent for the charge he had ipade. The scale of charges on which he had computed his fees was universally accepted throughout the country, although there was no definite legal authority for enforcing the charges. Counsel quoted Magistrate’s Court decisions in New Zealand ns precedent in the matter of architects’ fees and the basis on which they were assessed. — Plaintiff gave evidence as to tho instructions received from the defendants. —Mr Taylor said his clients did not wish to evade their liabilities, but they conclude! that plaintiff’s charges were unreasonable. Counsel considered that in such a case the court had the power to fix the fee payable after a consideration of the work involved .and the responsibility incurred. Counsel quoted several authorities in support of this view.—After evidence for the defence had been heard, the magistrate adjourned the case till 10.30 a.m. to-day.