RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 1323, 7 April 1877, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesdat, 28th Maboh. . . (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., KM.) In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default, with costs :— William Gregg and Co. v. Henry Keveli, claim of L2b" 103 4d, for goods supplied; Millar anu Co. v, Edward F. Jones, L3l 3s 7d, for the balance of a dishonoured cheque ; same v. John Banger, L 23 6s 2d for goo is supplied ; Sargood, Son, and Ewen v. J. Maysmor, L45 13s 3d for.gooda suppliod; Murray and Son v. Richard Howorth, LlO on a dishonoured cheque ; Uuthrie and Larnach v. George Burrows, L 43 10s on a dishonoured acceptance; Kohn and Co. v. M. Anderson, L22 14s Cd for goods supplied ; same v. W. Melross, L 8 10s for goods supplied ; Hogg and Hutton v. George Stewart, L601956d; Black v. Alfred Mellor, L 6 3s 4d fcr goods supplied; Flexman and Naahelski v. William Roberta, LlO on a pro missory note. _ Jame3 Paterson v. John Gibson.— Claim of L 2 53 6d. This was a judgment summons, and the defendant was ordered to pay the amount in instalments of 20s a month, or, in default, to go to gaol for 14 days. W. Rowe v. T. Dunne.— Claim of Ll3 8s BJ, the amount of a judgment debt. Tho defendant was ordered to pay the amount in monthly instalments, or, in default, two months' impriBonment. Charles Cooper v. James Sharp.— Ll 93, a judgment debt. Defendant ordered to pay the amount in weekly instalments of .53, or, in default, to go to gaol for a week. Edmund Cn>ss and Daniel Pyke v. Alex. Williamson.— Claim of L4O 13s for work done. L25 11s 3d were paid into Court. Mr Bathgate for plaintiff, Mr Stout for the defence. Judgment was reserved. Cranev. Jenkins.— Claim of LSO, value of certain furniture reincveu from the Hit and 1 Miss Hotel, at Green Island ; and a further

claim of LlO, the value of a saddle.- In regard to the firat item, His Worship gave judgment for the defendant, without costs ; and for the plaintiff in regard to the second, but to be reduced to 20s and 5s costs on the delivery of the saddle to the .plaintiff. Mathews and Baxter v. Tame.—H is Worship gave judgment in this' case as follows : —

This is an action to recover £30 Is 2d, the balance of an account for printing the Lic?nred Victuallers' Gazette. This publication was projected by one M«sley, son-in-law of the defendant. 'On March 13 1876, the plaintiffs wrote the defendant that his name had baen given as responsible for the printing, and asking him •• whetb.tr we'ure to consider you the responsible party in the transaction in the event of our printing the taiii publication?" To that letter* the defendant answered, on March' 14tb, stating that he had no interest in the Gazette, ',' but that out of friendship to Mr Mosley I will be responsible for the payment of the priuting of the same for the first two numbers, and to continue it for a longer time shou'd there be a probability of its success" The plaintiffs printed tbe first 13 numbers of the Gazette, which.w ere all duly paid f'-r by defendant's cheques, aud they continued for some tima to print the subsequent numbtsra, until finding that Mosley had been several weeks absent' and that payments to them were fallinginto arrear, they ' rendered an account to the defendant. During Mo'sley's absence, the defendaut tod attended at Mosley's place of business and looked after his bdoks. On August 3rd. the defendant wrote to the plaintiffs as folbws ;— " I return herewith the account you enclosed to me for printing the L. V. O'azecte, and I take this opportunity toagain inform you.'as l did when that paper was first started, that I had no interest in it, and only advanced the money requ'red to start it at first, out of friendship to lis proprietor, Mr Mosley." Some negotiations afterwards took- pUce between the plaintiffs and defendant in reference to the future printing and management of the newspaper, but these negotiations fell through. Ihe decision in this case most depend on the interpretation of tho' concluding sentence in the defendant's letter of March 14th. It has been urged for the defendant that the'rcsoonsibility existed' only " for the first two numbers," and that the concluding words, are so uncertain and ambiguous, that no further liability against the defendant, can, follow therefrom. It is true that a reasonable degree of certainty is necessary to constitute a valid written agreement, but to renderan agreement void'frbm'iincertainty it must ho so vague and indefinite thatitisnotpoaicle to collect from it the fall intention of the parties. I am of opinion that the only reasonable meaning of the defendant's words is that hs gave a positive guarantee to 'he plaintiffs for two mimbersj the guarantee to bo continued for a longer time should there be a probability of the success of the paper. The .plaintiffs had no means of ascertaining the success of the undertaking. -Then? connection with it was merely mechanical. The defendant, on the other hand, was versant with the whole details of the publication. He must have known from the books tho revenue from advertise; ments, and whether the publication was successful or otherwise. So long as the defendant gave no notice to the plaintiffs they were justified in! believing that success was not improbable. ■■ Subsequent to the data of the account rendered, the fact ot ;<tho defends t having entered into "negotiations wi^th the,p aintiffa for a continuance of the publication proves, at least, that tho defendant had not at the close o' the account sued for viewed the success of the Gazette as improbable. On the whole, I think the only interpretation of which.the defendant's letter is capable is thatit was a continuing guarantee , after jtbe first 'two numbers; revocable by notice Irom the .defendant. No notice Having been given to th? plaintiffs until August 3rd, I am of opinion the defendant'is liable under his guarantee tip to that' date. Judgment will therefore be for the balance sued for, with costs.- ■ • ' • <