MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3149, 22 July 1914, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

' Tuesday, July 14. ! (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment for nlaintiff by default was given in the following oases: —J. Gordon (Mr Allan) v. John Lindsay (Woodside), claim £8 10s, balance owing on an account of £l4 13s (costs £1 12s 6d); Walter Binstcdi (Mr Duncan) v. Gerogo M‘Gregor, claim £35 13s 7d, amount of dishonoured | cheques drawn by tho defendant (costs £3 ' 4s); Georgina James (Mr Tweedy) v. Alfred A. Wilson, claim £2O, for rent due (costs £2 6s); R. Ritchie (Mr Aspinall) v. H. Hollander, claim £5 ss, for professional services rendered (costs £1 4s fid); N. Reid and Go. (Mr Aspinall) v. A. J. King, claim £4 3s 3d, for goods sold and delivered (costs 10s); H. Wise and Co., Ltd. (Mr Moore) v. William W. Blair (Westport), claim £2 10s, for copy of Post Office Directory (costs 10s); same v. Charles James Rouse (Te Kuiti), claim £6 6s, for copy of Post Office Directory (costs 10s); same v. F. W. Scott (Inglewood), claim £3 4s 6d, for dishonoured cheque (costs 10s) ; same v. J. H. Whiting (Palmerston North), claim £3 12s, for copy of New Zealand Post Office Directory (costs 10s); D. 1.0. (Mr Moore) v. John Hogan (Wrey’s Bush), claim £3 6s, for goods supplied (costs 18s) ; W. Harris and Son (Mr Moore) v. John Nicholson, claim £1 11s, for goods supplied (costs ss) ; Gaudin and Marr (Mr Moore) v. Bert Geordon Stubbs (Raetihi), claim £3 17s 7d, for goods supplied (costs 10s); A. E. Usherwood and Co. (Mr Moore) v. Walter R. Pike (Fairlie), claim £3 Bs, for goods supplied (costs 10s) ; Nimmo and Blair (Mr Moore) v. E. M‘Bride (Hyde), claim £2 18s sd, for goods supplied (costs £1 4s); Guthrie, Bowron, and Co; (Mr Moore) v. Ambrose A. Falconer (Oamaru), claim £3O 19s 2d, money due on a cheque and promissory notes dishonoured and interest at 8 per cent, added (costs £2 14s): Laidlaw and Gray. Ltd. (Mr Moore) v. George Skerrett (Bluff), claim £3 9s, an amount* stated to be agreed upon (costs 10s). Judgment Summons.—David Auld (Mr H. Baron) proceeded against William S. Ritchie on a judgment summons for the recovery of £1 3s lid. —The iudgment debtor, who did not appear, was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, with 8s costs, in default two days’ imprisonment. Thursday, July 16. Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, (S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases: —Johnston, Sons, and Co. v. David Adamson (Christchurch), £2 13s 6d, or books (costs 12s); John E. Butler v. Albert E. Orange (Papanui), £5 4s 2d, on a promissory note (costs 25s 6d) : Johnston, Sons and Co. v. James Armstrong (Foxton), £2 10s, for books (costs 10s) ; same v. Thos. Joseph Donnelly (Auckland), £2 4s 6d, for goods (costs 13s); same v. Albert Edward Boyd (Feilding), £2. 10s. for books (costs 10s) ; same v. Peter Bell (Invercargill), 17s 6d, for books (costs ss); same v. Francis M'D-rmott (Auckland), £2 12s scl. for books (costs 12s); same v. Goorgo PciI, vD,..,. av i \ uekl-’nd) £1 10s for books (costs ss); same v. George Archibald Lundio (Palmerston North), £2, for books (costs 10s); same v. John Jackson (Temuka), £1 19s 6d, for goods (costs ss); same v. Allan Hooper (Mount White Station. Cass), £1 2s 6d, for books (costs ss). Begg and Co. v. Isabella M. Ramsay (North Chatton, near Gore), claim £lB Is 6d for hire of piano, and for possession of

same. Mr Calvert appeared for plaintiffs.— Judgment was given for plaintiffs for the amount sued for, and for possession of the piano (costs £6). Edward Bingham v. The Otago Farmers’ Union Mutual Fire Assurance Company, claim £4O, for wages as the servant of defendants from October 1, 1913, to January 51 last, at the rate of £2 10s per week. Defendants counter-claimed for £52 4s 6d, made up of £2O as part payment of the motor cycle, £2 4s 6d for repairs of the machine, paid by defendants, owing to failure on the part of the plaintiff to keep and deliver up the cycle in proper repair and condition, and £3O for damages suffered by defendants in their business owing to plaitiff not giving the usual and requisite three months’ notice of his intention to determine his engagement.—Mr Bedford stated that plaintiff was an insurance agent, and had been in the employ of the Government Insurance when he noticed that the defendants required an agent to obtain insurance for them. He saw Mr Hugh Mitchell, and an agreement. was come to by which he was to receive £2 10s a week as a regular salary, and commission. He was also to be supplied with a motor cycle by defendants. The salary was really to cover expenses incurred in travelling on defendants’ business. To undertake this work plaintiff had to sacrifice his salary with the Government Insurance, though he was still entitled to canvas for it. It was admitted that the result of plaintiff’s labours for defendantswas not as great as had been anticipated, but there -were difficulties such as the, fact that this being a scheme of mutual insurance, members were, in the last resort, liable for a pro rata call if there should not be sufficient funds in the association to meet a loss.—During the whole period in which plaintiff was employed he’ received no wages, although, as it was to be paid into his bank account, he did not discover the fact until he was out of the association’s employ. In consequence of a telephonic communication from Mr Mitchell, in which the dissatisfaction of the directors was expressed, and which he took to ariiount to a dismissal, he resigned. . Mr Bedford then called evidence.—Mr Wilkinson, in opening the case for the defence,' pointed out that defendants had not obeyed instructions, nor had he done the work allotted to him. Ho had agreed to pay £2O towards the cost of a new bicycle, and was under an obligation to return the same in good repair.—Evidence having been - given on behalf of defendants, his Worship gave judgment, in the course of which he said that in the middle of January plaintiff resigned his employment, and that resignation, according to the evidence of Mr Grey (chairman of directors of the association) had been received and accepted. He would say that from the minutes put in. So that the employment was put an end to mutually by plaintiff and defendants. That disposed of the third item of the counter claim. -On the £4O he must give judgment for plaintiff, and that also disposed of the third item in the counter claim. With regard to the second item of the counter claim he could not agree altogether with Mr Bedford’s view. Under the contract between the two parties the repairs had to be borne by the plaintiff. His Worship went on to refer in detail to the items tor repajrs in the counter claim, and said the sum in the counter claim would be reduced to 19s, for which judgment would be given in favour of defendants. As to the first itein, he thought there had been some misunderstanding over the matter, and he believed that ail parties had stated what they honestly believed to be the truth. It seemed to him that the plaintiff was to pay £2O out of his earnings—that was salary and 1 commission. He thought that everything pointed to the fact that £2O was to bo paid out of the earnings of plaintiff, and he would allow that. Judgment was therefore given for plaintiff for £4O, and for dea balance of £l9 Is in favour of plaintiff, and the costs awarded against defendants amounted to. £3. The court rose shortly before 5 p.m.