MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13728, 18 August 1908, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CIVIL BUSINESS.

A sitting of tho Magistrate's Court was hold this morning. Mr. h* S. Fitzherbert, S.M., presided. Judgment for plaintitf in lefault of defendant was given in the ease of the : Comifisioner of Taxes v. Cecil E. Jeffries, a claim for £2 15s 4d, with rosts •° S " DISPUTE OVER A TREE. Thomas Martin Stephens, ex-nursery-man (Mr. Frank Wilson) sued I man Enroth for los, tl»e price- of a lemon tree alleged to have been boLl by plaintiff to defendant, after inspection by the latter, delivered to him, ard thereafter objected to. Plaintiff admitted that no price had been fixed ■ between tho parties. Defendant stated that when the tree was delivered nt his house ho discovered it to be nli^fited and refused to accept it. Plaintiff was non-suited, with costs Bs. A PECULIAR CASE. Charles Britten Candy, now of Christchurch, sued Joseph Hooker, printer, etc., New Plymouth, for Cll 15b, for mt> and occupation of a paddock on the Frankley JRoad from September 20th, 1906, to July llth, 1908, at 2s 6d per week. Defendant counterclaimed for £7 9s, for stationery supplied to Candy's agent, but admitted owing tho remaining £4 6s and »u->d. it into Court. Mr. Wright appeared for Candy and Mr. Johnstone for ll>>ker. The evidence showed the case t.> V a peculiar one. Prior to September 20th, 1906, Hooker rented the |.addock from one S. W. Jackson. Mrs. M. C. Callaghan then became the owner for a short time, and the property was transferred by her direction from Tackson to Candy, on September 20th, 1906. Hooker, however, swore that lie had no knowledge that Candy was "he owner until four or five months ago, th.it he understood Mrs. Callaghan owned tho property, and that he dealt solely with H. F. Callaghan, as Mrs. Call.'\»h'.in's agenfc. The goods concerned in the counter-claim were supplied to r-illa-ghan, who sometimes traded as M. C. Callaghan and sometimes as Callaghan and Co. Callaghan, who also actel ;is agent for Candy, swore that ne informed Hooker two or three months after the transfer i"iv>m .T-uk^on to Candy that the latter owned the property. Mr. Johnstone contended That, even if Hooker had known that Candy was the owner of the property, he ,-ouVl still set off the cost of goods su ) plied to Candy's agent against the -cutal. In support of this Mr. Johnstone quoted several legal authorities. His Worship reserved his decision, to enable him to consider tho, points of law raised.