GISBORNE SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3176, 23 March 1911, Page 2

GISBORNE SUPREME COURT.

HALF-YEARLY SITTINGS. CIVIL BUSINESS. A JUDGMENT RESERVED. The civil sittings of the Supreme Court were, continued before His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman yesterday. THE TRAWLER. SWAN CASE 1 . Hearing! was resumed of the action brought by Alfred Friers against Thomas Beil for a declaration of partnership in the 1 vessel and also for the dissolution of the partnership as on December 6th, taking of account#, and the determination of the rights of plaintiff. In the alternative the plaintiff claimed £l3o' for balance of services rendered and in lieu of notice. Mr Barnard appeared for plaintiff, and Mr (Stock, with' him Mr. E. H. Mann, for defendant.. The cross-examination’ of the defendant was continued. He said that four witnesses who' had given evidence on Tuesday concerning plaintiff’s■ shaie had not spoken truthfully. Ho remarked that he was “clean worn out on Tuesday and could hardly think.” He also said there were several matters he wanted to shield. His Honor remarked that there was no occasion to be sentimental in these matters. The defendant said that after breaking off with plaintiff lie had been willing to put him back as master on the Swan at £4 a weak if he (plaintiff) le-c-eived his ticket back. Olias. H. Granby said that he had been: interested in a number of trawlers at Napier. He was at one time the owner of the Swan, and used to run her at Napier. She used to use about a ton of coal each trip. It was impossible to run .her for £lO a week. The net price lie asked was £SOO. _ He remembered Erie is and Bell visiting Napier in regard to the purchase of the" boat. It was not true that witness wanted £550, and because he had previously been negotiating with plaintiff he sold it to him for £SOO. Witness never recognised plaintiff in the transaction at all. The only thing lie knew was that he was to be engaged as master of the Swan. Witness explained that a working share meant that there were so many shares. The crew, the boat and the owner received a proportion of the profits. These shares did not entitfe the .crew or the captain to a share in the boat. When Mr. Clare was in Napier he (witness) had never heard of the plaintiff and never asked Mr. Clare to see Friers. He disputed a claim made by Messrs Clare and Clare for commission. Witness knew a man named Oarthy, and lie was negotiating for the puichase of a boat. Carthy said he had someone in Gisborne who was going in partnership with him. The Swan had been advertised for sale. He would be surprised to hear; that the Swan only burned a quarterCf a ton of coal for twelve hours.

Joseph O’Connell, master manner, residing at Napier, said that he was running the trawler Swan for the previous witness. He' remembered plaintiff and defendant visiting the vessel at Napier. Witness pointed out that plaintiff had no right to inspect the trawler without an order. Witness remarked that he knew that, but he had com© down- to inspect the boat for a man from Gisborne who knew absolutely nothing about trawlers. Later plaintiff returned and banded him an order, and told him Bell had purchased the boat, and that he wanted to stop witness taking it out- again. Witnesssaid lie would not let her go without lie got paid for what was aboard be-lon-yng to him. Plaintiff said he was to be master of the vessel, and defendant was going to work her on the share system. On the share, system the owner took two full shares, and the captain, engineeer and deck-hand one each. Witness had been work in w on the fift.r share system. He took four shares for the. crew and himself, and Qranb.v one. The wages under the arbitration award were: Engineer and captain 32s 6d and 84 per cent of the gross proceeds; deck band, £1 per week and 5 per cent, or 74 per cent of the proceeds. William Bell, sheepfarmer, residing at Gisborne, and brother of. the defendant, said that he remembered a conversation between the plaintiff, defendant, Cotterill, and himself. _ No arrangement was come to.’ Plaintiff did not sav he was an owner in the boat, but” he said that nothing loss than half «. share would do him.' To Mr. Bernard : He did not remember defendant saying that lie was glad thev had had this little • clearing up, and they would go on just the same as before . . Robert B rein gain, an engineer residing in Gisborne, said he was engineer cm the Swan. Defendant used, to pay him his wages regularly eveiy week. John Howie, Collector of. Customs m Gisborne said that he received instructions from the' Marine Department regarding the plaintiff, that he was not to act as master of a vessel. The certificate entitled plaintiff to command a boat of 15 tons between Portland Island and Cape Kidnappers, but not in Poverty Bay. His Honor reserved bis decision. A BUILDING CONTRACT.

John Wiliam Somervell, of Tologa Bay, contractor, Oswald Victor Somervell, of Gisborne, contractor, and Ernest Edmund Somervell, of Gisborne, contractor, plaintiffs, claimed l from Thomas Utting, of Tologa Bay, sheepfarmer, defendant, for £350 damages for''failure t;o allow to complete contract: or, alternatively 1 £2OU, account stated and , agreed, and £25 valnei of property taken, and converted. Mr. B'urnard appeared, for the plaintiff, 'and Mr. Stock (with him Mr. Bright) for the defendant. John Somervell - said that in July, 1909, lie was a member of the firm of John Somervell and Sons. The contract with plaintiff was entered into on July 26th, 1909, and the plans and specifications' were those connected with the work. ' On May 20th there remained to bo finished part of a pathway round the house., drain, coachhouse' to be .weatherboarded and roofed, a little''varnishing in the kitchen, and the back passage, and there was a small table to he made in the wash - house. The overflow from' the tank hach to lie altered, ahd the waste water from the ioof of the verandah had. to be. run into a drain at the back. The cost of those works would total about £25. It was arranged that witness should leave them and return in the spring. Tie had a discussion with defendant just prior to leaving. . He banded defendant an account with a view to settling what was the price. Witness understood that defendant was to keep a sum until the completion of the work. They discussed the . account for fouu lio'nrs. defendant taking exception to the cost of certain items he had) ordered himself. Witness asked defendant to let him know the items,

and he would look over thorn. Defendant then put a number of pencil marks on the account. Defendant, in order that witness mignt pay his men, gave him an order for £135 13s 7d on the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Co., Ltd. Witness did not go into the account any further with defendant. Witness was to look over it, and*'if he approved of the alteration in the account witness was to send him a receipt. Witness, as he requiicd the money to pay his men, took the amount, but did not agree to any settlement. Witness then went to town, and defendant wrote him the letter produced, to which witness replied. It would only cost 1.5 s or £1 to do the work defendant required in his letter. The amount of the contract was £768. Witness Unfortunately went bankrupt in June, and liad ! nothing more to do with the matter. Witness never authorised defendant to nay anyone. One man owed him hoard, and defendant paid him th© full amount, without deducting a sum for board. Witness’ sons had claimed certain timber, table legs, hinges, gate yds, steel ceilings, moulding. skirting, and tools which wore left on the premises. Mr. Stock pointed out that there was a. box on the premises which had not been' opened, and the-v could have this if tlw" sent for it. Some of the other articles were used on the job. The ease at this stage was adjourned till to-day at 10 a.m.