R.M. Court.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 670, 10 October 1891, Page 3

R.M. Court.

The Resident Magistrate’s Court was occupied all day on Thursday, and a part of yesterday, hearing civil causes. Knox v. Patutabi Road Board—ln this Case, heard a fortnight ago, evidence was given which convinced the Magistrate that certain work had not been done. The plaintiff relied on the Engineer’s certificate as estopping the Board from setting that up as a defence, and the Magistrate reserved his decision. No contract had been signed by the Board, but on this point His Worship decided there was a subsisting contract so tar as the doing ot the work and the amount to be paid was concerned, and had the specifications been signed no doubt the certificate would be final. In this case he held that the Board had not agreed to be bound by Mr Grant's certificate, accordingly he nonsuited plaintiS, with £4 2s coats. Mr DeLautour was for plaintiff, and Mr Finn for the defendant Board. In reply to Mr DeLautour, Mr Booth held that there had been no collusion between the ppntraotor and Engineer. A Disputed Contract,—John Muldoon T. Messrs Knowles and Pulford, claim £B3 Is. Mr Jones for plaintiff, and Mr DeLautour for defendant. A setoff amounting to £62 3s 34, including a claim for £2O special had been filed. In this case a contract had been entered into for the discing of 118 acres of land. The claim for this and aome extras made up the plaintiff’s claim, less £3O cath received. The whole dispute subsequently turned on the mean ing of the contract, which required scrub to be cleared where it interfered with the discing, the plaintiff alleging that this did not refer to the manuka 3ft high growing on one of the sections, estimated at 88 acres. The plaintiff and his witnesses alleged that it was never intended this scrub should be cleared, and that Mr Cameron, defendant’s agent, had passed the contract Subject to a small piece of work which was done. This was denied on the part of the defence, and expert evidence was called to show that discing was impossible with manuka above a foot high. Ultimately the Magistrate decided to deduct the 38 acres, and allow the balance of the demand, £63 2s "d, and against this the defendant’s claim for Cash £BO and £4O 13s 3d of the set off, thus leaving a balance in defendant’s favor of £7 10a Bd. Judgment was therefore given for defendant, with costs £7 10s, Undefended cases,—Mrs Menzies v. W. Capper, claim £3 Bs, board and lodging; judgment by default, with costs. John Clark v. J, B. Bennett (Mr Jones for plaintiff), claim £4 Ils 44; judgment by default, costs 7s. John Clark v.' H. Morse (Mr Jones for plaintiff), £2 14s 5d ; judgment by default, costs Judgment summonses.—George Schmidt v. J. E. Harries, claim £5 6s; Mr Jones for plaintiff. The defendant appeared, and was examined as to bis means. He admitted giving the plaintiff an order for the amount pf the judgment, but alleged that the order had been presented before its time, and therefore he had drawn the money himaelf. On some expressions let fall by defendant, Mr Botoh threatened to commit him. Mr Jones said all bis client wanted was the debt to be paid, judgment having been recovered ovjr IS month?, and as he knew Mr Harries had met with an accident they were finite willing to wait any reasonable time, Mr Booth made an immediate order, execution to be stayed two months; in default, 80 days’ imprisonment.—Walter Grey v, John Wares, claim £2l 12s. Mr Cbnsp for plaintiff, and Mr Jones for defendant. The defendant did not appear, but Mr Jones said he bad been instructed to eay that the debtor when served with the judgment summons had taken passage for Lyttelton to look for work, and that he bad ?ot sufficient funds to pay for his keep in Gisborne until the case came on. This Statement was denied by Mr F. Hall, who gave evidence, and said the defendant had received £26 the day before the summons was taken out, and when asked for the amount ot the debt or some security, had declined to pey. An order was made for immediate payment, execution to be stayed for one month, in default 22 days in Lyttelton gaol, " Harbor Rafes.—Gisborne Harbor Board v. W. Maude, claim £2l 7s Bd, Mr Finn for plaintiff, and Mr Day for defendant. The facts in the ease were undisputed, but the question was raised that Mr Warren’s appointment as collector was invalid because be had not complied with the provisions ot the Act regarding security, and therefore he was not duly authorised to make the demand required by the Bating Act prior to taking proceedings. After long argument Mr Booth overruled the point, and gave judgment tor the Board, with costs £8 12s, Delivery of Timber.—The Court was occupied for some time yesterday in hearing the case Clayton and Sawyer v. G. Williamsou, claim £lB 18s. Defendant paid £ll 17s into Court, and objected to pay more, on the ground that excessive charges had been made. Mr Finn appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Chrisp for defendant. After a great deal of evidence haff been taken, judgment was given for £l4 Ba, less amount paid into Court; costs £slos.