RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, December 13.— Before P. A. Girrington, Esq., J.P.; and R. Parris, Esq., J.P. DEFENDED CASE. Joseph Mulree v. Manganui Road Board. Claim for balance £12 2s, due from a contract on the Radnor Road, and £1 for a deposit on the contrast. Mr. Standish for plaintiff, Mr. Govett i for defendant Board. , Mr Standish stated that he did not t know the defence, as the road had been usbd for the cart for months, and when plaintiff sent in his account no mention or notification of th 9 work being bad was made. The Board did make objections to some extras Mr. Mulree claimed, but as he waived the right to those, he, (Mr. Standish) could not see what the defence could be, as the Chairman told his client that his account was not disputed. The defence was that the work was not carried out according to specifications, and not to the satisfaction of the Surveyor, and was also not complsted at present. Joseph Mulree, the plaintiff, said that he had been contracting 18 years in this district. He tendered for work, 36 chains on the Radnor Road, at 17s 10d per chain, and his tender w&s accepted. The deposit of £1 had not been returned to him. The work was completed in May last. He received progress payments to the amount of £20. After completion he sent in his account for balance, and £8 for extras. The engineer pointed out some small clearing up jobs (specified) after the account was firet sent in, and which he saw to. Since sending in his account. and reporting the work as' finished to the Board and engineer — seven months ago— he had received no notice about the work being incomplete. tie did one chain extra and also stumping, which he claimed as extras. He never knew an account to stand days after he notified that the work was done. The rond had been in use ever since. He understood that Mr Skinner recommended the extras should go against the bad points on the work, and in conse ■ qae.nce he abandoned the £8. He lost" £11 on the contract. Messrs Skinner and Sole were the engineers he had to do with. [A letter, dated September, from Messrs ykinner and Sole to the chairman of the Road was produced, but Mr Govett objected to its admissibility as evidence for the plaintiff. The. letter was read.J He did not know that Messrs Skinner and Sole had ceased to bo the Board'B engineers. He carried out Mb contract with the Board. He served the chairman with a summons and notice of claim, and the chairman remarked that he saw no reason for the procedure, as the account was not disputed. [Mr Govett contended the surveyor was the one with whom the plaintiff hdd to deal. Mr Standish held that the contract was with the Board only.] By Mr. Govett : He was prepared to say that the road on May 7 was 16 feet wide, according to specifications, to the best of hie belief. He was not prepared to say what width the road was now. He put in the drain to the befat of his ability, but could not say what it was now. He only found two pegs in t l ae drain in the swamp. Had he received intimation of the work not being done properly, he would have gone and put the work through. He understood from Mr. Skinner before taking this action that the drain answered its purpose, and carried out the spirit of the contract. When ho began the pegs were not all visible — he ould only find one or two on the whole

job. By means of an old drain he was able to get up to a difficult point without pegs. He believed that he gave' a notice to Mr Skinner anent the difficulty of having no pegs. He did not remember Mr. Skinner coming to the road on December 24, and tailing him he was not doing the work properly, nor did he ever remember him being on the contract at all. He instructed his foreman to carry out Mr. Skinner's instructions if he cam 9. John McCook, who was foreman on the latter part of the Radnor Road job for Mr. Mulree, considered that the work was done as well aa could be according to specifications when theie were no pegs to go by, Duncan McGregor, Chairman of the Manganui Road Board, said that Messrs. Skinner & Sole's letter to the Board recommending the Board to square up with Mulree, and waive the bad points in the work, was not a certificate to pay on. He considered the work was not done according to specifications. This was the evidence for the plaintiff. For the defence, Thomas Kingwell Skinner, who was engineer of the Board up to October last, gave evidenoe as to the work, which he said was not good. Richard Hutton Davies, surveyor to the Board since October last, also gave evidence. Their Worships gave judgment for the plaintiff for £6 11s; each to pay his own costs. Judgment Summons.— Messrs. Standish and Hughes v. N. S. Walker. Defendant was ordered to pay £9 5s 21 and costs Bs, in default 14 days' imprisonment. Judgment for Plaintiff. — R. G. Bauchope (Deputy Official Assignee in estate of John Mynott) v. John Rogers. Claim £7 3s, with costs 14s. — R. Cock v. A. Gilmour. Claim £2 Bs, with costs 63. — Standish and Hughes v. Eugene McCarthy. Claim £4, balance of account, with coats 6s. The Court rose.