RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 1243, 25 September 1875, Page 8

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Moxdat, 20th September. (Before John Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

George Smart (Green Island) v. David Proudfoot. —Claim of L7O lCs 3d, work done and tooney paid by the plaintiff at the defendant's request. His Worship gave judgment as follows :— ln the case of Smart v. Proudfoofc I must non-suit the plaintiff. It is quite clear'to me that the facts proved do not amount to any engagement on the part of Proiulfoot, binding him to employ the plaintiff when he came over to the Colony. The facts all go the other way The very fact of the plainthTs borrowing money from the defendant when coming across, ami promising to pay by instalments, lead me to the decision that this must be a non-suit. Simon Saunders (Catlin's River) v. G. F. Reid.— His Worship delivered judgment herein as follows : — " A master of a ship is usually entrusted with tlie discharge as well as the hiring of the officers and seamen of the ship in the home port (Story's Agency, 120) and to release the owner from any claim arising theretrom it would be necessary to prove that there was a specific contract limiting the powers of the trustee. The plaintiff appears to have had the power to hire and discbarge. He seeks to recover from the owner the sum of Lll 17s, paid by him to satisfy the claim of one Anderson, employed in the defendant's vessel The defendant was aware of Anderson's claim at the time it occurred, and made no effort to set it aside if it was incorrect or unfounded. There is a degree of suspicion attaching to the conduct of the plaintiff in so long delaying the presentation of his claim, but, in the whole circumstances, I am of opinion that he is entitled to a judgment." Macedo v. John J. Wood?. — His Worship delivered judgment herein as follows : — " This case turns on the principle that a person coitracting as agreed will be personally responsible where the name of the principal is not disclosed. In this case the defendant was acting for the committee of a private school. If he desired to escape liability he should have furnished the names of one or more of the persons composing the committee, and especially he should have done m when applied to in writing by the plaintiff. In his answer he evades giving all information. The plaintiff charged the books against the defendant when ordered, and it has not been proved by the defendant that he was authorised by any person to order them. The defendant has not placed the plaintiff in a position to make an election to sue his undisclosed principal Judgment, therefore, must be •gainst the defendant for L 2 12s, with costs, leaving it to him to recover the amount from hii principal, if he has one."