MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 19388, 31 October 1924, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CIVIL BUSINESS. A DEAL IN RAZORS. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M., William H. Inglis (Mr McDonald) claimed from Francis Hatch the sum of £2, allegedly due as payment for goods supplied by plaintiff to defendant. William H. Inglis, commercial traveller, said he called at Hatch’s shop and after some negotiations sold defendant a line of Durham Duplex safety razors. He had not received payment for them and, after six applications by letter for the money, had visited defendant, who wanted to return the goods. He (witness) would not accept them back as he had already paid for them himself. It was a straight-out sale and Hatch did not accept the goods on a commission basis.

Francis Hatch, bookseller, said that plaintiff visited him and asked him to take the razors. Witness did not think that they were in his line of business, but had agreed to try and sell the goods. He received no account from plaintiff and when he called had told him that four razors and 1 packet of blades were sold. He offered plaintiff 11/-, the amount of the sales, and told plaintiff that he had better take the balance of the razors back. Plaintiff would not listen to reason and had issued a summons.

His Worship said that defendant had evidently had no intention of buying the goods outright from plaintiff. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for 11/-, the amount of the sales effected, with 5/- costs. WAGES IN DISPUTE. John Jones (Mr Tait) claimed from William Mcßae (Mr McDonald) the sum of £2O, being the amount of wages alleged to be owing by defendant to plaintiff. John Jones, farm labourer, said he had been working for defendant for a considerable time at his farm at Dunsdale. Defendant agreed to pay him £1 a week and keep, but he had only received £ll 10/during the time he was employed. Upon being asked to grub up some gorse, he had given a week’s notice. Cross-examined, witness said he was 70 years of age. He was a pensioner.

William Mcßae, farmer of Dunsdale, said he had employed plaintiff for two months to dig the garden. Plaintiff was paid for that work, but when told he was no longer required, had offered to stay and work for bis keep. This he had done up till the time he left. Plaintiff was useless as a workman and witness had only given him the position out of charity. Charles McKay and Thomas Hanning, fanners in the Hedgehope district, gave evidence as to plaintiff offering his services to them to be paid for by his “keep.” He was not a good workman and was very disagreeable to deal with. Geoffrey Fortune, Registrar of Pensions, said that when applying for a pension, plaintiff had stated in his application form that he was not receiving any wages beyond his keep. Judgment was given for the defendant, with not costs. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintiff was given by default in the following cases:—Alex. Peterson v. Susannah Morrison for 13/6, costs 8/-; Commissioner of Taxes v. Thomas R. Drake for costs, £2 1/6; Commissioner of Taxes v. John Thomas Grant for £22 11/8, costs £2 4/-; H. and J. Smith, Ltd. v. T. Widdowson, junr., for £7 0/11, costs £1 10/6; H. and J. Smith, Ltd. v. A. Cunningham for £6 11/-, costs £1 10/6; Wm. H. Inglis v. Charles Bartow for 15/-, costs 9/-; Wm. H. Inglis v. Robt. A. Frame for £2 15/-, costs 8/-; Agnes M. Harper v. H. M. Shaare for £24 10/-, costs £3 !/-,