MATAWAI MILLING DISPUTE.

RICHARDSON AND BAI v. SLOAN. At the Magistrate's Court this .morning. Mv W. A. Barton, S/M.. delivered .judgiii-'iit i:; '.'■ M-.ilnv.'ii'ir.illi'.ig c;i-*.( : .', that oi' Harry Richardson.a nd Edward i Bai (Mr HlaiiVv.*,Fihu'ik'. Sloan (Mr. Bur- | nJfrclj liciittj (,'i\(*ll -.first. lii tin.* course of this- judgment" His 'Wot'hliip- staled :— '•Plaintiff* sw the- -"defendant to- -;e---cover the sunt, of .£63 : 5s v under, the following .* st-'tement (if: claim: — 1. , 11. he plaintiffs were prior" tv the £ 12th day of October, 1914. working for the deioildr ant under an agreement to fall, mill <md deliver timber,' dated 6tii Au»!irft, 1914. 2. Disputes and different*.* arose i.eiween the parties, and on aild before tho 12th October. 1914, the defendant was liable to pay to the plaintiffs a considerable sum of money tinder the said agreement, m addition to ji sum of £113 due under a promissory, note given by the defendant to plaintiffs. 3. On the said 12th day of October. 1914, the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to a settlement of their differences, and the defendant agreed thai the uniuunt (Mie by h'im- to the plaintiffs Was.: £133, less a sum of £24 15s lent by him to the plaintiff, the said E. Bai.' Tho defendant agreed to pay the balance of £113 I 5s as' follows*: '.Mn'tcly i £60 m cash and | the balance, namely £63 ss. by Iwo I promissory notes due m three months. £ and the plaintiffs on their part agreed ? to deliver up the said promissory notes j for £113. 4. The plaintiffs delivered up the said promissory notes as agreed. The defendant paid -into, the plaintiffs' bank account the sum of £50,' but m other respects has not carried put his agreement although requested by plaintiffs to do so. ■•• ■ 5. The plaintiffs claim from- the defendants the sum of £63 ss, being the balance of the said sum of £113 ss, or m the alternative' plaintiffs claim from the defendant the siim of £63 ss, as damages by reason 'of the defendant's breach of tyc said agreement. Defendant has confessed judgment for the full amount of the claim, but has counter-claim', d. as follows: (1.) By paragraph 7 ci' the agreement referred to m the statement of claim it was provided inter alia that the plaintiffs should k^cp the engine, ljiachiijery. and .accessories m good order and condition, and so delivei* up the same, and that the contractors should employ competent men m and about the premises.. (2) The plaintiffs m breach 'of the sii id paragraph and of other portions' of file (-aid agreement failed lo maintain the said citgiHe, ■ machinery and accessories m good orderaiid condition ahd to employ competent men. whereby the defendant suffered damages to the amount of £176 16s 3d. The defendant claims, after giving credit for the said sum of £63 ss,' the sum 'of £100. The articles claimed for arc enumerated from (1) to (27). It is clear from the evidence that, the whole of the I machinery and gear > connected with ihe sawmilling --plantVliad been m use. for a 'considerable time' when the contractors ..took it oyer. .Defendant had ample oppoftunity of seeing the plant and of observing the manner, m which it was being used, but pructicnl.y made no cvn\plaint until after legal proceedings had been taken against him. Defendant has called no independent testimony a; tv Ihe ■ ■contrition' of the plant when it vas handed over- to t,hc contractor, neither is there any outside evidence as to the state it was m when Sloan resumed possession. I ani of opinion from the evidence that Sloan's estimate as to the extent of damage and loss is greatly exaggerated. He has not ill my opinion made -sufficient allowance for reasonable wear and. tear. He claims for the loss of tools. many of which the contractors say they never saw. After looking carefull'v uit'o the evidence. I aih of opinion. that' Sloan is only entitled to recover upon the following items: 4 circular plugs of white metal 10s, 1 circular saw £10 10s. i'aultv timber to Thomas £7 10s. Richardson and Bai claim that these items were included m the settlement, but I am of opinion on reading ex. "li" that they were not. The only other item upon which plaintiff "is" entitled "to recover is m respect of the 4000 and 3000 feet of timber. From the evidence it appears that Richardson and Bai used 7000 led of Sloan's timbi r, m building a --ottagc, and according to the evidence of the witness Jai'lov, it' was arranged at the settlement between the parties 'on the IPth October that ho (J'arlov) should on behalf of Richardson and Bai cut 7000 ft of Umber to replace that taken by them, which has not been done, owing to a disagreement between all the parties concerned, and that being so I must make a reasonable allowance for tho timber, which I fix at £20. : I allow m all upon the counter-claim £38 10s. Judgment Will therefore be entered fur tho -plaintiff for the amount claimed, £63 ss. k'ss amount allowed on' tho counter-claim. j £38 10s, leaving a balance m favor of plaintiffs m the original action of £24 15s, with costs of Court £2, solicitor's fee £2 2s, and witnesses £3 Bs."