MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2636, 19 October 1909, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

• MONDAY, OCTOBER 18. (Before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. ' James, Hughes, who had been twice previously convicted within the past six mouths, was charged with having been lound drunk in Gladstone Read on Saturday night. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment with hard labor. A first offender, who admitted having been drunk on Saturday in a public place, was fined the usual os and costs or 24 hours’. A STOLEN DOG. A Maori named Rangi Elm plea-cod guilty to having stolon a sheep-dog, value £5, the property of Frank Barker. It was stated that Mr Parker tied his dog-up iu the Railway Stables on Saturday, and in the afternoon the prisoner took it away tolling Mr Chambers, who was in charge of the stables, that it was liis. When Mr Parker ascertained that the dog was gone, he informed the police, and the dog was discovered tied up at the back of a; house where the accused was staying. The accused elected to be dealt with summarily, and explained that lie had had seen Mr Frank Heeny in the morning and arranged to buy a dog for £6. Mr Heeny said he would leave the dog at the stables, and when the accused saw a dog there he thought it was one Mr Heeny had left for him, and took it away..

Mr Heeny, however, was called, and swore that though Elni had discussed the purchase of a dog with him, no arrangements had been made to leave the animal at the stables. Sergt. Hutton said the accused was a host offender and bore a good character. He had worked for IS years with Mr Heeny. The latter added that the accused was not sober on Saturday.

His Worship : That is no excuse. Mr. Barton added that the prisoner had make matters worse by telling lies, but owing to liis previous good character he would not be sent to gaol without tlio ojrtion of a fine. He would have to pay £5 and costs, or undergo 30 days’ imprisonment in Gisborne police gaol. PROHIBITION ORDER REFUSED.

Hainsley Paul applied for a prohibition order against a youth named George Brown, Mr G. Stock appeared to oppose the application. •T 1 ic informant in his evidence said that the respondent had been drinking to excess for over 12 months. During the last six months he had seen him intoxicated ten or eleven times. He thought the young man's health was being injured by drink. Mr Stock: Did anybody suggest to you that you should take these proceedings?—No. I think you had a row with him a little while ago?—Yos. ilr Stock stated that up to a few weeks ago Brown had been drinking heavily and his mother had applied for an order, but had not gone on with the case as the lad had given up his bad habits. Since then he had been living in a temperate manner. Mrs Brown said that she thought that if a prohibition order was taken out now it would be detrimental to her son’s interests.

The application was refused, TTis Worship stated that this was on the understanding that the defendant kept sober in future. A BUILDER’S CLAIM.

Garble Bonney, builder, sued Herbert Wm. Harrison Ingram for £l9 4s, balance due for erecting a cottage at Mangapapa. Mr T. ‘A. Coleman appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr L. T. Burnard defended. The defendant paid £5 into Court. The plaintiff, said- that he arranged to build a whare for the defendant at the beginning of the year, and gave an estimate for £2l. Subsequently, however, the defendant wanted certain additions, such as a rough lining, tank stand, porch, etc., which he was told would bring the price up to something like £36. The nett cost to the plaintiff had been £33 12s Id for the whole of tha work. The defendant, when presented with the bill, however, refused to pay more than the balance of £5 owing out of the £2l. W. O. Skeet, builder, said he had inspected the cottage and valued the work. The extras over which the dispute arose were worth £lO 12s 6d, and the nett value of the whole work would he £33 6s.

By Mr. Burnard: The door had no frame, and the thickness of the window sill was an inch. The usual thickness was two inches, unless a man wanted work very cheap. The tank stand was also not very substantial, but one couldn’t expect much for 10s. The whole job struck him as being a very cheap one. One could not expect a first-class job for a cheap price. Frank Pickford, foreman carpenter, said that he inspected the cottage last week. The value he put on the building leaving out certain specified work, was £23 9s. The extras totalled, in his opinion, £l2 14s 6d. As a contract the place was worth £36 3s 6d. The workmanship was inferior. He would say that the value would be £4 less owing to inferior workmanship. Mr. Burnard said, in opening the case for the defence, that the work not having been really completed there was nothing due on the contract. However, £5 had been paid in which the defendant was prepared to stand by. John Oolley, builder and contractor, said he valued the work .at £2O 10s, exclusion of certain items which the defendant had done himself. The job was a unworkmanlike one, and not the sort a competent carpenter would have turned out. The job*seemed a waste of, good material. It would talc© £lO to make a reasonably good job of it. Hilary Peacock, timber merchant was put into the box and stated that the plaintiff was formerly in his employment. , Mr. Burnard: What do you know about his character ? ' His' 'Worship: I cannot allow a question on that ooint. , , Mr Burnard submitted that fie was entitled to produce evidence as to plaintiff’s reliability as a witness, but Mr Barton declined to admit it.

Harry Anderson, carpenter, said he thought the job was a very poor one. He did not think a competent carpem ter co-uld have done sucli a job. His Worship: I suppose you mean “would.” He could have done it if he had tried.

Witness: Well, he’d have had to try very hard. (Laughter.) The defendant stated that before the building was started he told the plaintiff lie wanted no extras. The job was to include rough-lining, and other items charged -as extras, and was to cost £2l. When the building was nearly completed, however, the .plaintiff 1 showed lum a list which showed an expenditure of £2B. The defendant said “This looks a bit serious for you, doesn’t it?” and B'onney replied, “Well, I suppose there’s nothing for it but to finish it now.” Subsequently the plaintiff claimed the amount sued for, but the defendant was only willing to pay the £2l originally contracted for. Norman Ingram, the defendant’s brother, also igave evidence. His Worship reserved his decision in order that lie might inspect the building.