CONTRACT DISPUTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2246, 18 July 1908, Page 1

CONTRACT DISPUTE.

CLAIMS' FOR MATERIAL SUPPLIED. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr. W. A. Barton,' S.M., several cases wero mentioned which arose out of the contract between Messrs llamon and Smith and Win,: Crump, builder, who ha 6 been declared bankrupt. The actions were brought under the Contractors! and AYorkm,'!)),' 1 '; Lien., 1882, and the uiilfoioht?' cases vO. J —Pc*‘.w"bd and GW'(Mr. ,_G. Lysnar) v. Hamon and Smith (Air. R. 0. Burke) and the Official Assignee lbr tlio property of AVm. Crump (Air. E. W. Nolan), claim for, LI4O for goods supplied; Cave and Vealo (Mr. Lysnar) v. same, claim for £4l 10s Id for goods supplied; Robert Lewis (Air. T. A. Coloman) v. same, claim £7(l 9s for work done ;Eroderick Gray (Air. Coleman) v. seme, claim £BG 7s 7d for work done; Jas. Alorrison (Air. Coleman) v. sumo, claim £7O, for work done; J. R. Nicliolls (Air. Blair) v. same, claim £47 9s lid for materials supplied.

Air. Burke said that his clients had paid about £3OO into Court, but other counsel contended that Alessrs Hamon and Smith should have cither paid in the full amount of the liens or 25 per cent, of the contract. Air. Burke said that this had not been done, and that £7l had been paid in wages to onable tlio work to go on, and ho contended that ho had a right to deduct that umount.

•Other counsel objected t 0 this, and disputed the right to pay that money. His_ AVorship hedl that under tlio Act 25 per cent, of the contract must be paid into Court. Air. Lysnar, on behalf of Peaeocko and Co., asked 1 that his case be taken last on the list, but other counsel objected to this, and His AVorship upheld th 0 objection. Both Alessrs Coleman and Blair asked for permission to cross-examine during tlio progress of each case. His AA r orship said that in the absence of some authority on tile subject ho could not allow that procedure. Anything counsel required could be suggested to the solicitor for the Official Assignee.

The oise of Ji. J. Peacocke was then taken, and plaintiff, in giving evidence, stated that ho supplied ■Crump, who was the contractor for Messrs Hamon and Smith, with the material as shown in the statement of claim. No payments had been mad ( , for the timber, and he personally served a notice of claim on Alessrs Hamon and Smith, under tbo Contractors’ and Workmen's Lien Act, 1882, on June 15th. ■ To Air. Nolan : The timber claimed for was all for the same contract. Crump carted, it away and witness never let timber leave the yard without knowing where it was going. The receipt (produced) for £l3O was given by him to Crump in exchange for a promissorv note. • Ro-oxamiiß^ Lysnar: Ho took the promisssory note because Crump owed him a good deal of money, and lie (witness) had 1 pressed Crump for payment. 1 Further evidence in this case was given by G. Peacocke and AVm. Crump, and furthor hearing in, the cases was adjourned until Monday next.