AN INTRICATE CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2227, 26 June 1908, Page 3

AN INTRICATE CASE.

hearing adjourned.

I At tlio .Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M.. tlie case of Alfred Mmlc (•Mr. T, A. Coleman) v. Malcolm Hovil Straehan (Mr. Stock) and the bllicinl Assignee, iu the estate ol Chambers and Koain was called on. Mr. Nolan represented tho Assignee. The ,claim was' brought under, the Contractors and Workmen's Lien Act, 1892, to recover, from: Malcolm llovil Straehan, of Waimata, shqepfarmer, and the Official Assignee ol the goods of James Chambers ' niul Peter Thomas Keam, of Gisborne, contractors and builders, bankrupts, the sum of £53 Os Id, for the amount of a sub-contract as plumber for the supnly of material and labor. Tlie work," the statement of claim sot out, was done for Messrs James Chambers and Peter Thomas Keam for the tin id Malcolm llovil Straehan, at Waimata, between January Ist, 1,908, and April 9, 1908. No credit, was agreed to by the claimant. When the case was called, Mr. Coleman stated that tho amount claimed had been paid into Coiijrt, and Ilis Worship said that counsel still had to obtain judgment. V x Soane argument ensued, Ilis Worship holding that the proper course must be to prove the claim. .Mr. Coleman, in reply to a question from His Worship, stated that his objection to a judgment was that, of going to the Court with an agreement and having the whole case reopened. IMr. Nolan staled that his client did not admit to any sum. As there was no surplus lie was indifferent, an’d left tlie payments to he made by the Court. Mr. Stock said that, his client admitted that money was due under the contract. He was not defending the action. There was a claim of £ls For carting as a set-off against the balance of the contract money, and the nlaintiff was really only entitled, to £74 of tlie £9B paid into Court. This item was for cartage done for the contractors, and had boon overlooked. His Worship said that before the money could be paid out. judgment would have to be obtained.

Mr. Coleman having intimated that lie was not then prepared to go on with the case; an adjournment was granted until this morning. The ease of Joseph Dixon Tiistin v. the same defendants, an action to recover £55, being the amount of a sub-contract for painting and paperhanging, was also adjourned until this morning.