MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Argus, Volume XXI, Issue 3258, 16 August 1906, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Wednesday. —(Before W. H. Northcroft, S.M. SLY GROG-SELLING.

Ngahene Hughes, Alexander Hughes, Manne Fraser, Nine, and J. Thompson were charged with selling alcoholic liquor at Waikaka. Sub-Inspector Gordon appeared for the prosecution, and Mr 11. T. Gillies for the accused. Three constables who had been in the neighbourhood working in the bush for a fortnight gave evidence of purchasing liquor from the accused;and Edward Arthur Reidy deposed to having brought some liquor into the district for use at a tangi over his child, and had given it to Alexander Hughes to serve out to the guests. There was a good deal of sly grog-sell-ing in the district, mostly by the crews of the vessels trading up the river. He would like to see it stopped. He was manager of a flaxruill. The Magistrate found all the accused guilty, and fined each of them £5, and £1 15s costs. He remarked that that was the lowest fine he had inflicted in such cases. CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiff in the following cases :—R. J Pauli v. A. E. Savage, claim 13s fid, costs ss; R. J. Pauli v. Williamson, 14s and costs ss; J. Eidler v. D. Kenny, 7s and 7s costs ; H. J. Ashby v. Mona Hemopo, £l2 13s 4d and costs £2 fis ; Hugh Kelly v. W. Lynch, £7 4s, and £1 4s fid costs ; Gaze

and Co. v. Anna Coombos, 12s and costs 5s ; Lacey T. Williams v W. Giles, £ll 8s 2d and costs £1 10s 6d. A COMMISSION CASE. John Casey v. W. McKee : Claim £Bl 10s, for commission on the sale of a farm. Mr Gillies for the plaintiff, Mr Swarbrick for the defence.

The plaintiff in his evidence said he was a farmer residing at Tamahere. Some time in September defendant told him he had bought 150 acres at Tirau and wished to sell his Tamahere property. He asked if plaintiff knew of anyone likely to buy a place like that. Witness replied ‘‘no,’’ and defendant then said: “If your hear of anybody you might try and sell my place.” He said he wanted £l4 or £ls an acre for it, but it all depended upon how much money was put down. About a fortnight after defendant again asked if witness had heard of anyone likely to buy the place. Witness again said “ No.” Soon afterwards he met Patrick O’Grady at the Hamilton sale, and O’Grady told him he had sold his place at Karamu and asked if there was an improved place at Tamahere for sale. Witness inquired as to the size of the place required, and mentioned McKee’s place to him, quoting him £ls an acre. Witness then introduced O’Grady to McKee. Cross-examined by Mr Swarbrick: Plaintiff said he had no written document regarding the farm; ha did not draw up the agreement and did not take O’Qrady over the farm. After O’Grady had been to McKee’s place, he told the plaintiff what he would have to pay for the property. He would swear that McKee told him to try and sell his place at £l4 or £ls per acre. Patrick O’Grady, farmer, said after a conversation with Casey he was introduced to McKee, and in consequence he he went out to see the farm, and subsequently purchased it at about £l4 per acre. Prior to the introduction he did not know McKee’s place was on the market.

Cross-examined by Mr Swarbrick, Casey told his wife that it did not matter a penny piece to him, but he would like to have O’Grady for a neighbour. The price of the farm was reduced owing to the fact that no agent was concerned. The area was 232 acres, and the price was £2137. The amount of the commission was not deducted from the £l4 per acre; tbe deduction was for tanks, windmills, &c. John Allport, of Tamahere, stated that he said to McKee in the Post Office at Tamahere : “ I hear you have sold your farm.” He said :“ Yes.” Witness said: “ Did Roche sell the farm,” and he replied, “No, Johnny Casey sold it.” Witness said: “Well then you will get out of paying the commission,” Defendant said : “Oh no, I will have to pay that to Johnny Casey; he sold the farm.” Witness said: “You will not have to pay Johnny Casey, ■will you?” He replied: “Yes; just the same as if Roche had sold it.”

Cross-examined by Mr Swarbrick: He thought this conversation took place in October or November, in the presence of witness’ wife. By the Bench : Rocha had promised witness a handsome present if he sold the farm for him. He had nothing to get from Casey. William McKee, farmer, of Tirau, said his first conversation with Casey with reference to the farm was in the Hamilton sale. Casey came to him and said Patrick O’Qrady wanted to buy a farm of about 200 acres. He said he had told O’Grady that defendant s place might suit him, Casey then introduced him to O’Grady, and that was all that passed. O’Grady then arranged to come out and see the farm, but he did not come. A fortnight later they again met at the Hamilton sale, and he again arranged to come out. He did so, and enquired the price. Defendant asked £l4, but O’Grady offered £l3. O’Grady said he had sold his farm privately, and had allowed the purchaser commission, and as this was a private deal between themselves if defendant would allow the commission he would take it. Witness accepted providing the financial arrangements were satisfactory. They came to terms and the agreement was drawn up. The price was calculated as follows : £l4 per acre, less 2\ per cent, commission. With the exception of the first interview, Casey had nothing to do with the deal. He had never told Casey he wanted a purchaser or given him the terms of sale. He had the farm in the hands of several agents for sale, who had taken down the particulars in writing. As to the conversation with John Allport, witness denied that Casey’s name or commission were mentioned. This was a fabrication of Allport’s. Cross-examined by Mr. Gillies: Casey’s statements re several conversations were false, as also was Allport’s evidence. He worked out the commission and wrote down the figures in the presence of O’Grady. There was no discussion between them regarding the removal of tanks and windmills, beyond the tact that witness asked for compensation, but eventually they were thrown in. The agreement was for £l4 per acre, less 2* per cent. If O’Grady said he would advance from £l3 to £l3 13s per acre in consideration of the tanks and windwills being left on the property, it was not a fact. Patrick O’Grady, recalled: Said that McKee agreed to allow him the benefit of the commission. His Worship said Casey was not a commission agent, and therefore the fact of McKee stating he would sell for £l4 or £ls per acre without saying how much he would require down, was not sufficient. He was satisfied that at the time of the sale McKee allowed O’Grady the commission, and was it likely be would go to another man and say he had to pay commission to Casey. There was no doubt in his mind, and he would give judgment for defendant with costs £5 18s 6d. AN EXPENSIVE DISPUTE. J. Tucker v. Dr. Brewis—Claim 10s, cost of removal of gravel from a site where a building was to be erected.— Plaintiff in his evidence swore that defendant had told him to remove it, and charge the cost to him. The work had occupied two days. When asked for payment defendant said the charge was exorbitant, and offered ss, which plaintiff declined to accept. J. Barry gave evidence as to the removal of tbe gravel, and said the work off and on, occupied about a day. Defendant denied that he had ordered the removal of the gravel, but said he had given Tucker permission to shift it. F. E. Smith, architect for the work, said a portion of the stuff would have to be removed to allow the new building to be proceeded with. Strictly speaking the work would count as an extra. The Bench said there was no doubt that there must have been an implied contract. It would have been a waste to build over it, and the sub-contractor therefore, undertook to shift it. He thought Dr. Brewis must have forgotten. This was one of those cases where people went poking about their places to see that work was properly done, instead of leaving things in the hands of their architect. He gave judgment for plaintiff for 8s (a day’s work) and costs £2 Bs. Mr Lewis appeared for plaintiff, and Mr MacDiarmid for the defence.