MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2721, 28 January 1910, Page 7

MAGISTERIAL.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 27. (Before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M.) CIVIL LIST. Judgment was given for the amount claimed in the following undefended eases:—Oliver Sandlant (Mr. Mann) v. Wm. Henry Field, balance of claim, £ll 16s Id, £lO 4s lid having been paid, and costs £2 15s; Thomas Wentworth. Martin (Mr. Bright) v. Ryan Bros. £7, costs £1 7s 6d; Robb Bros. (Mr. T. Alston Coleman) v John Patrick Ward, 12s, costs os; same v Victor Sandlant £1 16s, costs ss; Lancelot Chas. Allen (Mr. Sainsbury) v John Drapper £l6. costs £1 10s 6d; Hallenstein Bros. (Mr. Burke) v James Fitzmorice £3 4s, costs 10s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. In the judgment summons ease of Todd and Douglas (Mr. Burke) v James M. Williamson (Mr. Coleman) an order was made for the immediate payment of the amount £l3 Is 4d in default 14 days imprisonment in the Ashburton gaol. In the case of Joseph Alex. Butler (Mr. Stock) v Robert Murland (Mr. Burnard) it was stated that defendant w r as working on the Railway works, Otoko, his average earnings being about £2 per week. He had a wife and four children, and the high cost of living at the works had caused him to be unable to put anything- aside towards the payment of the debt. After defendant had been cross-ex-amined by Mr. Stock, his Worship gave judgment for the immediate payment of amount claimed, £7 6s 2d in default 8 days’ imprisonment, the order to be suspended as long as defendant paid the sum of 5s weekly. SUPPLY OF COAL. : Evidence was also taken in the case of Robb Bros, v August «E. N. Binder, claim 18s 6d for coal supplied. Defend, ant claimed that the goods had' been paid for by his wife, who gave the money to the carter. Robert Robb, one of the plaintiffs, denied that the goods had been paid for and produced the receipt of defendant’s wife for the delivery of the coal. In reply to his Worship, defendant said that he did no± know of his own knowledge that tlie account had been paid. Judgment, was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed with the addition of 6s costs. ' TRADESMEN AT VARIANCE. Wade and Gray, plumbers and gasfitters proceeded against Francis Stafford, builder, to recover the sum of £5 7s 6d, for goodsosold and delivered. Mr. Burnard. appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr G. Stock for the defendant. The statement of claim included a Targe number of items, most of which were admitted by defendant. , Frederick Gray, of the plaintiff’s firm, stated that he supplied some taps to defendant for a house in Victoria township Defendant also borrowed a quantity of galvanised iron w&ich he had not returned. The arrangement was that if the iron was not returned it was to be charged. Ho also supplied gasfittings' for a house in Ormond Road, hut no quotation was given to defendant for them. Bills were sent regularly to defendant, but the latter had never disputed the account until quite recent, ly, and then some particular item was pointed out to him by defendant and disputed. ■ By Mr. Stock: He had not contracted with defendant to supply hose pipes with taps attached. The price of taps was an extra. He could not say if defendant had put the iron back in his (witness’) yard. He could not say whether defendant or defendant’s brother-in-law authorised him (witness) to put in gas-fittings. John Henry Robinson, foreman in the employ of plaintiffs deposed that to his knowledge defendant had not returned the iron he had -borrowed from plaintiff. He was, always in the shop and if defendant had put any iron back over the fence, he (witness) must have seen it.' For the defence, Mr. Stock called defendant, who gave a general denial of his liability. He claimed that no extra charge should have been made for the taps. He was quite certain he returned the iron borrowed. He put it over the fenoe into defendant’s yard. In connection with the Ormond Road job gasfittings, he told defendant he was willing, to pay for the pipes, but not for the fittings.' He did riot order the gas. fittings nor did lie select any of, them, and immediately on receiving an account he saw plaintiff and told him that his l brother was liable. By Mr. Burnard: When he returned the iron-over the fence lie called somebody’s attention to the fact, but be

could not sav who the person was. This concluded, the evidence. Evi d ence was also heard in a eon literclaim lodged by defendant for £6O, being the purchase money of a building. Plaintiff, in the counterclaim, said that in 1906 he entered into an agreement with the firm of Wade and Gray for the purchase of a building. He received no notice, nor had ho seen anv, that the partnership between Wad© and Gray had been dissolved. The building in question was resting on loose blocks, and he arranged to sell it for £6O, to be paid before the expiry ol the lease, in about 21 years, and during that time a rent of 12s per week was to be paid. This had been paid. He spoke to Gray about the building after lie became aware of the dissolution of partnership, and Gray acknowledged his obligation in regard to the purchase of the building. The question of payment was discussed about December 1908, when defendant Gray demurred and said lie would not give any more than £3O or £4O for the building. Eventually defendant said he had no loose money to spare, but agreed to pay the £6O if wit. ness would “take it out” in work. In pursuance of this defendant tendered for certain work, but lie gave them day work instead at a house in Stout Street. ’While at this house defendant told him that the price he was to receive from the purchase of the freehold of the building was to be decided by arbitration ; and some time later defendant showed him a letter from Mr. F. Hall’s solicitors, forbidding him to remove the building. Alterations had been made to the,building by defendant after he had sold it to them. An extension had been added, and fixed to house-blocks. Up to this time Gray had never disputed his liability. By Mr. Burnard: Tho building was first rented by defendants in 1903, and 12s per week was paid him up till 1908. In 1906 defendant AVade asked him to extend the premises, and a little later a new building "was erected by defendants. He employed two men whom lie lent to defendants on the ''job, the defendants agreeing to pay time and material, and he (witness) paid the men. Although his shop was next door he was never on the job. It was a year before he Avas made aware of the'dissolution of the defendants’ partnership, and defendant Gray on no occasion disputed liability.

The evidence of Arthur Wade, late partner in the firm, taken at Hastings, was read. In it witness Acknowledged the liability of £6O to Stafford for the building, and that Gray was made aware of the liability without objecting to it in any way. For the defence, Mr. Burnard moved for a non-suit on tlie grounds (1) that the contract was non-enforceable by virtue of Section 6 of the Sale of Goods Act. and by virtue of tlie corresponding clauses if tlie statute dealing with the sale of goods and land,'and (2) that the contract is unenforceable on the ground that at the time fixed for completion, the subject matter of tlie contract had, in law, disappeared. Continuing, counsel claimed that the dissolution of partnership between Wade and Gray, although supposed to he kefpt quiet for two years, was well-known to the trade. Frederick Gray, defendant in tlie counter-claim, said that when the dissolution between himself and Wade took place no special steps were taken to keep it quiet. AVade never told him of any arrangement with Stafford for the purchase of tho building. He did not hear of the arrangement until after he had taken over the business from AA’ade. A couple of months later Stafford mentioned the arrangement made by AVade to purchase the building for £6O, and that he (witness) was then liable. AVitness then objected strongly, stating that he hact no intimation of the liability from AA 7 ade when purchasing the business, and that he had already recompensed AVade for the building at the hack. He saw Stafford several times later, and told him that he would not recognise the liability and referred him, for compensation, to AAriide. Ho suggested to Stafford that perhaps the building could not be removed, but Stafford said that it could, as he had a lease of the ground it was on. Acting on this he offered Air. Stafford about £3O for tlie building on tlie understanding that it could be removed, and that Stafford would, accept work in lieu of a cash payment. By Air. Stock: He worked for AVade for a time after dissolution. He knew that the building belonged to Stafford, and ho saw the, alterations being made when the building was being enlarged, but he had no knowledge of any agreement between Wade and Stafford. He absolutely contradicted Stafford’s statement regarding his (witness’) agreement to pay for the building by means, of work.. He and AVade had an interest in a couple of houses which were mortgaged to Air. Allan Black, and the latter was told of tho dissolution of tho partnership. By pulling out a few nails tlie addition to the building could easily be detached. Allan Black was the next witness called by Air. Burnard, and he stated that he had been informed by Air AA r ade in 1906 of the dissolution of the partnership. This concluded the evidence, and, after both counsel had addressed the Court, his AVorsiliip said he had little doubt as to what his judgment would be, but he would take time to lock into the points of law raised.