MAGISTERIAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume XC, Issue 13275, 2 May 1907, Page 6

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—YvEDNESD AY. MAY Ist. (Before Mr C. A. Wray, S.M.) CIVIL CASES. Wottcn and Co. (Mr Shaw) v. Walter Raymond, of Makikihi, blacksmith, claim £1 9s 6. Judgment for plaintiff with co:ts lis. Alex. Fraser (Mr W. Shav.-) v. Lewis and Thompson, claim £SO 3s 3d. Judgment by default with cohia £4 ss. CLAIM FOR- COMMISSION. His Worship gave his reserved judgment in the case of Angland v. Sullivan, £l2 15s , commission on the sale of a farm. Mr ShaW appeared on behalf of Mr Alpers for plaintiff. His Worship gave judgment as follows: —This is v. claim for commission oh the sale of a farm, which the plaintiff, says he negotiated on behalf of the defendant, to Edward O'Neill/ The defendant had previously placed the farm for sale in the hands of Mr D. Mahoney, another commission agent, who advertised it, and O'Neill in consequence of seeing this advertisement came to Timaru with a view to purchase He c-Dlled at Mr Mahoney.'s office on the 21st January, but found that Mahony was away, and was not expected to return for a fortnight. As he wanted the farm, and was not willing to await Mahoney's r-eturn, he consulted the plaintiff, and on the »ame day accompanied him to the defendant's place. The plaintiff in his capacity as: agent, conducted the negotiations with the result that the farm was then and there sold to O'Neill for £260, the price first asked and for which it had been placed: with Mahoney, being £3OO. At the same time defendant signed a document authorising the plaintiff "to dispose of the property on his behalf. It is a common practice to place properties for sale in tho hands of competing agents, it being iunderstood that the person who succeeds in effecting the sale, gets the commission. In this; case the parties were aware that, Malioney being absent, ,he could not conduct the sale, and the purchaser determining to conclude the business at once, with the assent of the defendant, the latter placed the negotiations in plaintiff's band, and gave him written instructions to sell the property, at the price named. The sale was then brought about by plaintiff, notwithstanding that the introduction.was from another agent. That agent was away when wanted, and could net' bring the. parties 'together or negotiate the sale. which is the whole sitraticn. This was done by plaintiff at the defendant's' rgquest, with a full knowledge of the circum-. stances by bo h parties, and it is quite evident that tli3 plaintiff was acting throughout a-1 an independent agent, and as such is entitled to tho commission claimed.—Judgment for plaintiff for £l2 15s, with court costs £1 ss, solicitor's costs £1 6s, and witness O'Neill's expenses, 12s. WAIMATE—WEDNESDAY", MAY" Ist (Before Major Keddell, S.M.) BREACHES OF THE STAMP ACT.' James Aherne. was charged with having in his possession on ths 24th March, a jar of bear on which the {.tamp had not: been defaced. Defendant pleaded guilty. Mr Nixon, Customs officer at Timaru, conducted the case; for the prosecution. Constable Fergusson deposed to' visiting a travelling hut occupied 'by defendant, arid finding ths jar produced; the stamp -wes not properly destroyed. Defendant was lined £l, and costs 7s. James B. < Milsom. was charged that on the 2v;th day of March, he did neglect to affix a. stamp to the cork of a jar of beer. Defendant pleaded not. guilty. ■Mr Nixon conducted the case for the Department. ' He said that in this case Mr Milsom, who was a brewer, knew that the sutmp should be placed on the cork, so that it would be destroyed when, the cork was drawn.. He called, : Constable Fergusson, who deposed that he found the- jar, produced, in a travelling hut. The. jar had the initials "J.8.M." on it. ' James Aherne, labourer, said he was living in a hut on the 24th Alareh.: Remerabtitd Constable fergusson taking possession of tho jar, produced, on that date. Got the jar from Mr Milsom's brewery. Mr .Milsom filled it, and did not say anything about destroying the stamp. To Mr Hamilton : li Mr Milsom Laid he did nob till it wouJd not contradict him. This was the case for the Department. J. li. Milsom, the defendant, said he knew Aherne. had some beer about the 23rd of March, but could not aiy positively who aflixed the stamp. Always put the stamp right over the cork himself. vVas in the habit of telling' people to be particular about destroying the stamp. 1 bought it probable that he had spoken to Ahsme, who had been to the brewery several times previously, but it was so long ago that he coid-1 not be certain. - His vV'orship said it was rather hard on the brewer that so much time had'elapeed before the charge was brought. The object of the Act was that the stamp should i be destroyed when the cork was drawn. Defendant would hi fined £5 and costs. POLICE CASES. James Tiffen was charged with neglecting to send his son to the Makikihi School. Defendant was fined lCs. Walter A. Wilson was charged with neglecting to send his child Nellie Wilson lo the Waimate Public School regularly.— He whs fined ss. Gustave Valk was also charged with failing to send his child regularly to the Waimato Public School: —He was reprimanded. A. J. G. Bennett was charged with refusing to clear gorss from his land in com-, pliance with an order to that effect from tho local authority. Mr Hamilton' appeared for the County Council, and MiRaymond for defendant. After hearing the case a fine of Is per day (139 days) was imposed. William Reynolds was charged with allowing cattle to wander in back street on the IStli March, and was fined £1 and costs 9s. Dorothy Kirby was charged with allowing one cow to be at large, and was lined 5s and costs £1 10s. CIVIL CASES. A Joiufi and Co., v. R. Murdoch, claim £6 8s; no appe-.irance cf defendant. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. Manchester Bros and Goldsmith v. W. J. Fiilton, claim £l4 6s Id, judgment summ-ons. An order was made for payment of the amount forthwith; in default 3J days'' imprisonment. J. E. Butcher v. W. Parkinson, a claim for. compensation through breach of agreement in connection with tii3 shearing of 2900 sheep. Mr Raymond, for plaintiff, said the fact:; were that an airangement was •entered into between the parties . to have the sheep shorn at Douthwaite's shearing shed. Parkinson engaged men to do the shearing, plaintiff among them, and told them it was to take place at I!r,u;hwai:e'-.\ Shortly ufUrwatols Parkinson engaged other men, and plaintiff wrote to him tilling him that lie would hold him to Ids engagement. Defendant replied that as plaintiff had broken his contract by taking o'.h.r shcej) to shear, he (drfen lunt) considered himr.c'.f justified in erf.aghig other men.

Kvidmrv -w.-s given by J. Butcher, R A. WeaLherlty. ?.!. Kennedy. J. Nolan P. Trre. nnd P. llvnlie. !\lr Alpcrs then outlined the defence,

It was that there was a contract between plaintiff and defendant, that, plaintiff wanto procure the men, and that the sheep must bo shorn in time for the wool sale in Timaru on"the 4th of January." When defendant found that, plaintiff would not noti be, able to fulfil his contract, lie sent a verbal message by Mr Burson telling plaintiff that he was engaging other men. Therefore defendant felt justified in rescinding tho contract. W. Parkinson and J. Doi:thwai'.e gave evidence in support. His Worship reserved judgment till next Coiu't day.