MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 3, 26 January 1899, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH.

Thursday, Jan. 26. (Before Mr R. Beetham, S.M.) Civil. Casus. — Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following cases :-- Mrs R, A. Lawrence v. R. French, claim 19s ; J. Thompson v. Charles Cotter, £2.7 \. Urquhart v. P. Fehrens, claim £12 15s 6d. on a judgment summons. Mr M'Connell a-peared for the creditor and Mr Brown for the debtor. Ability to pnv was prnvd. and the debtor was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, in default six weeks' imprisonment, tbe warrant to be suspended sr lomj as thr> debtor paid in instalments as arranged. — Frederick and George Hickmort ->*. William Vincent, jun., claim £40. M;* Beswick appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Cvesswell for, the. defendant. The claim was for £30, the amount of. money paid.by the plaintiffs for the defendant on Oct. 27, 1898, in the matter of an award or valuation made on Oct. 25, being the proportion of the fees payable, to arbitrator for valuing the brewery property prior to the dissolution of partnership. The plaintiffs further claimed £10, the amount received by the defendant between August -20 and Oct. 25, for tho use of the plaintiffs. The defence was that the defendant, one of the partners in Vincent's brewery, should, after the dissolution of partnership, continue the brewery, which he had carried on while he was a partner, and that, instead of drawing a weekly salary, he should receive his share of the profits. He had, accordingly, taken his usual share during the five weeks which elapsed between the time the partnership was dissolved and he severed his connection with the firm. His Worslfip adjourned the case till 10 a.m. next Thursday. — John Readman v. R» S. Gibson, claim £5. Mr Deacon appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Beswick for the defendant. The claim was that, en or about Oct. 15 last, the plaintiff agreed to purchase frcm the defendant his interest in certain leasehold lands, the property of the Church Property Trustees, for the sum of £50. He completed two negotiations, and deposited a sum of £5 in part payment. Later he paid the defendant the balance of the purchase money. On the Church Property Trustees being approached to grant an assignment of the property they refused, and the plain tiff had to give up .possession. There had at the time of the purchase been an agreement that if the trustees would not agree to the assignment the bargain was to be off. but. instead of the plaintiff being reimbursed in the full amount, £50. there had been a deduction of £5 made, for the reeo very of -which the suit was now instituted. The defence was 'that the purchase had been mode through a commission agent, through whom the purchase money \had also been paid, and he had retained the £5 as commission on the nale. It was this agent, and not the present defendant, who should hayo been -sued. Judgment went for plaintiff for the lull amount claimed, with costs.