MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9319, 20 August 1908, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

«. CHRISTCHURCH. Thttrsday, Attgvst 20. .(Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) Judgment ut Default. — In each of the following cases judgment with costs was entered for the plaintiff by default : — J. M. Brown v. Ewen M'Laren, £2 Os 4d ; JSevr Zealand Industrial Cooperative Society, Limited, in liquidation (Mr Vincent), v. F. T. Boyce, £3 ; same v. J. Lyness, £2 19s 3d; R. C. Brook (Mr Cuningh-am) v. William M'Gvegor, £3 2s 6d; Hallenstein Bros., Limited (Mr Rowe), v. C. Riach, £2 10s 7d ; J. Logic (Mr Rowe) v. T. Kent, £1 17s; J. Phillips (Mr Rowe) v. J. E. Elstpb, £1 0s lOd; Strange and Co., Limited (Mr Flesher), v. "W. Fairclough, £69 16s 8d; Francis H. Steel (Mr Smithson) v. H. G. Cameron, £13 17s 8d; Edward Coull (Mr Malley) v. Robert Ranger and Edward Gee, £73 13s 3d; Anglo-New Zealand Cycle Co. (Mr Weston) v. Alexander Rogers, £IG. A Question of Fees. — Matilda F. Smith (Mr Meares) claimed £10 Is from Ronald- O. Duncan (Mr Anthony) as the balance of rent collected by him on her behalf. In her evidence she said that a man nanied Moorhead, in the employ of the defendant, had acted maa private capacity as her agent. She resided in Remuera, Auckland. Moorhead, about two years ago, left Duncan's employ, and without communicating with her he delegated the agency to the defendant. After she came to Christchurch later she received all the rent from Duncan, with the exception of £10 Is, which he kept as his fee. She never authorised Duncan to act as her agent and never gave Moorhead power to delegate his agency. Moorhead's fee was £10 per annum. The defendant said that Moorhead delegated the powers of agent to him and guaranteed to coninrunicate with the plaintiff. The plaintiff, when she came to Christchurch, ratified his agency, and had agreed to his receiving the same remuneration as Moorhead. Ivy May Cartwell and Andrew Duncan, clerks , employed by the defendant, pavo ovidence to /the effect that the plaintiff, when the account. waX tendered to her by Duncan in his office, raised no objection to his charge, of £10 Is, and expressed satisfaction at his having carried on the agency for her after Moorhead had abandoned it. Mr Bishop said that the onus was on the defendant to show that there was an agency or a ratification of an assumed agency. This be had failed to do. In addition the charges, he thought, were exorbitant. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £10 and Claim: for Wages.— Mary Wood (Mr Hunt) sued for the recovery of £98 from James Henry Welsford (Mr Frazer), as wages due to her for her services as housekeeper for three years. She admitted that the defendant had mad© her a number of payments in the form of orders on firms for clothing. The defendant had always offered to pay her in a lump sum. The first arrangement was for 10s a week as salary. He engaged her as hoiisekeener. The • defence was that the plaintiff had not \ been engaged as a servant, and that no arrangement was made as to salary. '. 'He paid her money whenever she^asked i fo- it. The plaintiff admitted that she had sued for £26 too much, being a v©ar in error in her original claim. Judgment was. given for the plaintiff for £50 and costs