DISTRICT COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1257, 11 April 1883, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

♦-_ Monday, April 9th, 18S3. ♦ (Before His Honor, Judge Bkoad.) KEGINA V. HOLLYWOOD. Mr Jones for tho Crown Solicitor, presented an indictment for perjury, against James Hollywood. His Honor said there was an important and difficult question of law mv lved in tho case, namely, whether a Warden had authority to administer an oath to witnesses upon the hearing of applications for, and objections to mining privileges. It was now doubtful whether the power given to tho Warden by section 105 of the "Mines Act" was not limited to tho hearing of such suits -and complaints, as tho Warden's Court is empowered by Sec. 102, to " hear and determine." But the Crown would no doubt contend that Sec. 144, removed tho difficulty. That was so far from clear, that he should in any case, reserve tho point for the Supreme Court, and therefore, it would be best to act under Sec. 153, of the " District Courts Act," and leave tho case for trial by that Court, where he hoped the prisoner would bo represented by counsel, and the point, which was of much interest and importance, be properly argued. HOOKER V. KATER. This was an action to recover the sum ■ of £38 3s for. work and labor done upon extras in a contract for painting. Mr Jones appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Lynch for defendant. John Hooker was called and stated that ho took a sub-contract from Long and ; Co,, builders of the Exchange Hotel, to i execute certain work according to specifications submitted to him. Defendant i acted as supervisor, and the whole of the , work now charged for was executed at his request, and after being told that it would be charged for as extras. Other witnesses we're called to substantiate plaintiff's evidence. Defendant admitted acting as superyisoi*, but totally denied the essential i>art of .plaintiffs 'evidence, namely, as to the work being extra and would be jcharged fyr. No such conversation took place. The work had to be performed ■- i" to tho entire satisfaction of the supervisor " and this gave witness full power • to order wliat he liked. '; Counsel having replied : His Honor said tho only question at issue was as to whether a second contract had been entered into between the parties, whereby defendant agreed to pay for all extras ordered. On this point there was a direct conflcct of evidence, plaintiff swearing that such a verbal contract was entered into, and defendant distinctly denying it, and the balance of probability not being sufficiently strong either way to lead the Court to a conclusion, the plaintiff would have to be nonsuited with cost £5 ss. GARDNER V. EUREKA COMPANY. A*n action to recover the sum of £110, for services rendered in performing mining survey, furnishing plans and designing machinery, and providing specifications. Mr Lynch appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Jone3 for defendant. The caso having been opened, the plaintiff was called and examined at somo length concerning the items charged for. lie said he had been occupied 36 days in fiekl work and working up calculations, for which he had charged £2 per day. Paid £13 in wages to chainmen . Charged; £15 for a map showing course of tunnel, and the last item of £10 was not for actual work performed, but witness was mining survoyor to the Welcome Company, and' in that capacity had become possessed of certain information which he had been able to use to the advantage of the Eureka Company when preparing tho plans in question. His instructions from the plaintiffs were of a very comprehensive character, and he was told to spare no expense. • Mr Watkins, authorised surveyor, was called, and proved that the charges made were fair and reasonable. This closed the case for the plaintiffs,. For tho defence, Messrs Nottman and Collins, directors, and Mr T. Lee, manager of the company, were called to show that plaintiff had needlessly elaborated, the work, and had provided duplicates of specifications, which were not required. Mr Little, authorised surveyor, proved that tho charges were excessive. After hearing further evidence, and listening to the address of counsel, His Honor disallowed tho itora of LlO for use of information obtained in Welcome mine, as also the charge of Lls for plan, and L 6 for duplicate specifications, and gave judgment for L 79 and costs.