MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21647, 18 May 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, May 17. (Befo*c Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for the plaintiff was given in the following undefended cases: —Jago, Biggs, Ltd., v. Ernest Edward Hornbrook (Mosgiel), £1 claim for goods supplied, with costs (8s); Jago, Biggs, Ltd., v, A. J. Gibson, £2 19s, claim for goods supplied, with costs (£1 3s fid); Waitaki Dairy Company, Ltd., v. L. Butterfield, £l9 19s 6d, claim for goods supplied, with costs (£2 16s); Stanton Bros., Ltd., v. Harold E. Elliott (Thames). £2 9s 3d, claim for goods supplied, with costs (£1 3s 6d); Whelan Bros. v. Henry Rigby, £lB 15s, claim for goods supplied and work done, with costs (£2 15s); Matheson and Roberts, Ltd., v. Henry Rigby, £3 15s 6d, claim for goods supplied, with costs (£1 4s 6d); Texas Company (Australasia), Ltd., v. V. Wills (Invercargill), £3 10s Bd, claim for goods supplied, with costs (£1 4s 6d); Southern Electrical Supplies v. A. Brookes, £1 16s, plaim for goods supplied, with costs (9s); Wilkinson and Son v, I. S. Reid, £4 8s 3d, claim for goodssupplied, with costs (£1 6s 6d); Texas Company (Australasia), Ltd., v. S, Waddell (Mataura), £37 Os 2d, claim for goods supplied, with costs (£4 7s 6d); Reddells, Ltd., v. Frank Murray (Hawea Flat), 15s, claim for costs only; Ashley W. Cooper v. G. Brown, £3 Ds, claim for goods supplied, with costs (£1 5s 6d); State Advances Superintendent v. Edwin James Dodd, £ls 18s Bd, claim for principal and interest on a mortgage, with costs (£1 4s); G. A. Hopkins v. Alexander Fraser, £1 10s, claim for rent due, with costs (8s); Reilly’s Central Produce Mart, Ltd., v. Leonard Butterfield, £4l 5s Id. claim for goods supplied, with costs (£4 Is 6d). JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

T. R. Carroll v. R. J. Linkston, claim for £29 Is 6d.—The defendant was ordered to pay the amount claimed, with costs (255), in default one month’s imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended provided he paid 30s per week. A. Harris v. C. A. H. Hutton, claim for £7 Bs.—The defendant was ordered to pay the amount claimed, with costs (Us), in default seven days* imprisonment. Alexander B. Watt v. Andrew Burt, claim for £1 Us. —The defendant was ordered to pay the amount claimed, with costs (6s), in default two days’ imprisonment. S. ■ Holley v. T. Hughes, claim for £ls 10s. —The defendant was ordered I to pay the amount claimed, with costs (225), in default 14 days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended provided he paid 10s per week. RESERVED JUDGMENT DELIVERED.

Reserved judgment was given iff the case in which the Australian Whaling Company, Ltd. (Sydney), proceeded against Agnes Woodhouse claiming £l2 10s, alleged to be owing on calls for shares. — The magistrate said that he had decided the matter on the basis of the case when it was first before the court. The company was registered in Sydney so that the law applicable to the matter would be the law of New South Wales. It might be that New Zealand law and that of New South Wales were at one in the matter, but he could not assume that. The question was whether the court had jurisdiction in regard to foreign law. If the parties were able to overcome these preliminary matters he would be able to deliver judgment.—The matter was first adjourned for a fortnight, but counsel for the plantiff desired to have the magistrate’s decision on New Zealand law, and agreed to waive any question of jurisdiction. —In reviewing the evidence the magistrate said that the’ defendant made application for 50 shares on the solicitation of one A. R. Brewer, described as New Zealand representative of the plaintiff company, and paid Brewer £6 ss. On March 15, 1930, Brewer again called on the defendant and was paid £l2 10s, the amount of the allotment and the first call. On June 11 Brewer again called on the defendant and was given a cheque for. £l2 10s, the amount of two further calls, for which Brewer gave a receipt similar to the earlier receipts, but no receipt bad been received by the defendant from the company. The defendant next received a notification from the company dated June 24, 1930, advising that Brewer was no longer representing the company in New Zealand and asking that all payments be sent direct to the head office, Sydney. Brewer did not account for the third payment of £l2 10s to the company and further correspondence ensued between the parties. The plaintiff company contended that the defendant had not made the payment in accordance with notice of call, and was now liable to pay the amount to the company. The defendant contended that Brewer was held out as the agent of the company to receive these moneys and that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming that the calls had not been paid. Brewer being the New Zealand representative of the company, the question arose what powers such representation connoted and in this connection the course of dealing between the parties was important. The plaintiff had already received two payments from the defendant through Brewer, and plaintiff’s circular letter of June 24 that Brewer was no longer representing the company in New Zealand was a recognition of what Brewer had been doing os the company’s representative. Although the defendant’s original obligation was to pay the amount of the calls at the company’s office within a limited time, payment of overdue calls to the company’s agent was a good payment. The facts set out showed that Brewer was held out as the company’s New Zealand representative, that he made a practice of receiving, and forwarding call moneys to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff company was aware of the nature of the receipts given by Brewer. The company’s view of the position was shown by the fact that it notified the defendant by circular letter that Brewer was no longer representing the company in New Zealand and to forward payments direct to head office. The magistrate concluded that there was a holding out by the company that its representative Brewer was authorised to receive such payments. The company was estopped from now asserting that BrewCr did not have such authority. Judgment would be given for the defendant, with costs amounting to £4 14s. An application for appeal on a point of law was allowed subject to the plaintiff paying the costs of the appeal of both parties.