CIVIL CASES.

Inangahua Times, Volume X, Issue 1621, 2 November 1885, Page 2

CIVIL CASES.

j M'Guioan v. Roes. Claim for £2 4a, for goods snpplied. No appearance of defendant. Jsdgement for amount claimed and coat* Dick y. Gun-mis. Claim for £8 17s Id, for goods supplied. Judgement for amount atid costs. Same v. Wat Tna. Claim for 19 10s for goods supplied. Order made for the payatent of tha amount io instalments of 20/- par month. Cbxssy t. Ovxatro. Claim for £2, balance of wagea dee. Paul Creasy : I claim 13 forbalanoe of wages ; wa» in defendant* employ from I lth May to 12th September, at 80/- per week ; have received £20 I©*, from defendant ; won't swear to the exact sum, bnt it is pretty near that amonnt. By defendant : Ton acknowledged to me that there was a balance of 12. coming to me ; never said 1 would be responsible for Smith's debt By the Bench : I never promised defendant that I would he responsible I for Smiths debt of XI 19s; defendant kept £2 off my wagea when we squared np. John Overend : I took plaintiff to be liable to me for Smith's debt This closed tbe case, and judgement was given for plaintiff for the amor t Inanoarua County Council v. Brooks. Claim for £1 13s for rates. Judg* ment for amount I aik St Co. (Trustees) v. B. Wood* Claim for £6 5s for goods sapplied. Judgment for amount. G-.llaoe.br Bros. v. Borates. Tiiis was an action to recover £10 10a for goods supplied. No appearance of defendant Judgment for amount. Mr Lynch for plaintiff. Pain A Co. ▼. Nicnou* Amount claimed £6 6s _d for goods supplied. Judgment for amount DlfK T. SAtnrDßtlS. 128 1 7s lid claim for goods supplied. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amonnt claimed and costs. Gaumxnt v. Cooetlan. Action to recover 13 balance doe oo work done. Defendant pleaded not indebted. William Gardiner: Tbe claim is for surveying boundary of defendants least, also for consulting Mr Lynch in i relation thereto. The debt was contracted in 1884 and since then <te- > fendant had never diepated tha account and had promised to pay it By defendant : Too have two leases, bnt I only surveyed one lease ; yon i were with me when I made the first I survey ; I made tlie survey with the proper instrnmeuUr t made, tha first _ 1 aurvey with a aapa and after with » -sbaian dttMt tail yea tftttt H»tsj»

•wou' 1 not stand in law ; by my first ... ■■-.•.• I mud.- not that M'Gee had 25 cms of coal and by the second , v [ mid--* it to be 12 tons, but ,' wi* b.«c:ius" von misinformed tne o? ti.e fi.;t.s; In Vbe fii'st survey no il'ivrp." was made for a vein of i •■iii-.-k'tible coal which was found yards. l-J,* vie B-icV. I went out on two -1 - .vvid each time at defendant's ■ . , a» I **year that defendant i •-> I t » my the amonnt. and that : :*r ■ vio-p tw-** surveys. T'i'* .-.. ned the case for plaintiff. 1 ■• . » * i^i'an: I employed plaintiff to • >: . -"n-vey of aco tl lease which he •*••! -vri! i ?ap<- and aft«*' vi. I-= 'i > 1 t-> „ .a,!.; it with a chain; he made a ,iist. lie in the first survey and there ,V> h.\ to go over it again ; plaintiff mile a survey and found that there wm -24 to'is of coal taken out. I got Me W itkins to ni'c-a survey an J i.<* found that o-ily 12 tons had been taken; •then went to plaintiff and told him ■♦here arnst be some mistake and he sni^ie had measnred it with a tape - and that tape would not stand in law and I.c would therefore rmi over the le.isf- a^ain with « ebatn. By plaintiff: I knew M'Gee was taking the coal and I wanted you to tell me how much h«- took. You told me you made a mistik-.- with the tape. M Johnston made the w.n?. sn ■.■<•" v and did it himself in one day. At tbe time I cam yon the 13 I told you I ■considered it too much. By the Bench : I nevet made any •demand on M'Gee, for the coal he took •out of the mine. By tin- B-nch : lam qn> «""tan I never told phinfciftthat I wanted him to in ike a second snrvey ; merely told him that Uf must have made a mistake. His Worship said the ca*e was one of those unsatisfactory ones of plaintiff -swearing one thing and defendant swearing diametrically o/iposim. H thought, however, that the balance of probability was on the side of plaintiff, and would therefore give judgment for the amount. Jacobsbn v. Cockbdrn. This was an adjourned judgment -summons to enable plaintiff fc) prove that defendant had earnt sufficient money to satisfy the judgment. Mr North appeared for defendant. Plaintiff was not prepared with my fresh evidence as to defendants ability to pay. but he kuew defendant had plenty of work. Defendant was eximined by tlie Bench and said thai since the last Court day he had hardly earnt suf-fi-ie.t to pvy for hi* tucker. There was no money to be had ; it had all gone away ; he could not say whether lie had earnt more than a pound a week. It would take it all its time to make it a pound a week lam a single man, but if things get better I might do something in that line shortly. His Worship said there was no evidence of defendants ability to pay. H« would therefore allow him another month and at the end of that time would make an order for payment. Farquhar v. Smith. An action to recover the sum of £ for work and labor done. Mr North appeared for plaintiff and Mr Lynch for defendant. Mr North said a setoff had been put in but he would object to any evidence ■being tendered thereto as the parties were partners at the time. If partners could not sue each other they could not plead a set off against each other. John Farpuhar: I am a joiner and carpenter; I charge defendant for thirty-seven days for joining work done inside his residence; I claim 16/8 per day, which is the ruling rate for carpenters in the district : I worked longer hours than is usual ; defendant *had a contract on the road and his man having left him I went and helped him to take out gravel ; worked three I and a half days ; I gave him credit for seven weeks board at 20/- per week, 10/ for tobaooo and cash and hat 24/ ; after doing the work charged for I entered into partnership with defendant to build a bridge over L.rry s Creek ; the amount of the contract was 171 ; we had no settlement of the partnership account ; went to his place to know how we stood ; he read a list showing that there was 4*7 or 18 left ; asked him whether 1 was to receive anything out of the contract and he said no that there was, nothing coming to me ; I had received nothing for my labor on the con ract ; never came to an arran gem* nt with defendant as to the profit, or loss on the contract ; never came to any settlement as to the partnership accounts ; he never said anything to me about a loss on the contract ; he kept all the accounts and lifted all the money ; all the items in the set off except the cash and hut were got in the partnership account ; we went prospecting together and would have l»een partners in anything we found ; but we got nothing and he charges me for labor prospecting ; no man in the world could smoke as much tobacco as charged against me in defendants set-off. By Mr Lynch : I worked in defendant's house ; did all the inside work ; stayed the building, part in ceiling joist, divided the building throughout; did not measure it ; kept t'.i* time from day to day ; started on March 16th ; I can lead with any mechanic in the country ; there was nothing said at'the time we entered in partnership about tobacco j defendant did not tell me that the contract had been unprofitable; at the close he simply told me I was to get nothing ; By the Court: I did not pay attention to tbe quantity of tobacco got ; he had two accounts and it might lie that some of his other men got the tobacco. Beeiamitiad : Tbo premises were in • vary bid condition ; a parson going ioßOWeoald not tall what work It*.*

i done ; I would have to be there to I point out the work to him ; h** could not see the work now ; he could bavo told me to go about my business if I ; was not working well enough ; he nevei* complained that I was not doing enough work per day ; produce a detailed list of the time I worked, with the days absent ; entered the time at the end of each week. This closed the plaintiffs case. Mr Lynch having opened the case for the defence called — Michael Smith . I am a farmer on the Buller road; On the 28th February he called at my place ; I never agreed to pay him any wages bnt. heard my wife tell him he would be paid sometime ; he diadoed the four rooms and passage ; he also ceiled four rooms ; I sawed all the boards and nailed them all in ; I believe I could have done all the work in two weeks ; the first week I saw him -showed me he would not do ; he never worked a full day for me d iring the whole time ; he used to get up about 10 o'clock and stroll out and come back in the middle of the day and potter about aud charge a full day for it; he is a regular loafer ; the work done is not more than 17; it was when we weri settling up over the bridge that he told me he chargid tne with 87 day-; when I told plaintiff there wa«* nothing coming to him over the bridge, ue -hi not object: hesrw the account for tobacco; there was no partnership in the supply of the tobacco ; I bon-rht my own tobacco and produce the bill of it. Cross-examined : Went into the contract on the 29th Ay il after the dadoeing ; went into tl c contract with plaintiff in order to -et shut of him ; would work tiie lorgest nonth in the year to get rid of h'm; it. is a perfect loafer ; when he told me lie claimed for 37 days I told him to clear out ; I collected the bills; plaintiff did not receive the bills but he knew the amounts ; I received all the money and paid the hills and kept 'he balance for my horse hire ; had all the bills at the time I told plaintiff the result of the contract ; I had at that time got all the hills; did not tell him that he had anything to pay; plaintiff hoard*. d nine weeks with me ; the tent was got for the partnership and plaintiff walked off with the slack of it ; he also took the billies; he got six bags for bed covers as he had no blankets ; he asked me to go to his claim and help him to bale ; I went two days, but had no connection with him in the claim. By the Bench ; He had nine half pounds of tobacco while he was work ing at my place, and a similar quantity while working at the bridge ; he asked me to go to his claim as he could not bottom the hole for water ; did not work two full days at the claim ; I had no interest in the claim ; if there was lOizs to the ton in the claim I would not go mates with plaintiff. William Gardner . I am a mining engineer and have had many years experience in carpentry and archit.eetare; know defendant's place ; examined the interior, the ceiling, dadoing, Ac, as pointed uiit tome by Smith would take about 12 days; I could do it in that time ; the work is not done m a workmanlike manner; it is not even a handy man's work ; the rooms are about 12ft. xllft; Smith did not point out the architraves on the windows to me ; the architraves on the doors are badly done ; I should not consider the work worth anything ; it might be worth £10 if it was properly done. Cross Examined : It was defendant who pointed out the work done to me ; did not see the house before the work was done ; if the house were out of repair it would cost more to do the work. Henry Francis : I am a carpenter of thirty years experience ; have spen the work pointed out to rae by Smith, and it would take an ordinary handy-man ten or twelve days to do the work ; it would not take so much ; I estimate the value of the work at £8 or £9 ; it was anything but a workman like job ; the dadoing is right enough. Cross-Exatnined : If the dadoing were scribed it would take a little longer time than that stated ; did not ; see the house before, the work was done ; Smith pointed out the work ; plaintiff was not there to show me the work ; don't know whether any staying had been done ; I can only speak as to the work shown ; if he did work above the ceiling it cannot now be seen ; fitting the sashes and doors and seeing that the doors hung straight, locks fitted, &C, would take time. This closed the defendants case. Judgment for plaintiff for £5, and costs.