LOCAL NEWS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume I, Issue 76, 2 June 1866, Page 2

LOCAL NEWS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, [Before J. Poykter, Esq., 11. M.] This Day. CATTLE TKESPASS. Appo Hocton was fined 10s. and costs for allowing one head of cattle to be at large. CIVIL CASES. Garin and Others v. Moore. — Claim £33 12s. lOd. damages for repairing the spire of the Eoman Catholic Church, which the defendant had undertaken to build watertight. This case had been adjourned for the production of the contract and specification, and to prove that the contractor was bound to keep the spire of the church watertight three months. Mr. Lightfoot said he Avas called in July of last year to do some repairs at the Eoman Catholic cathedral. He found the wet coming in the spire and the tower. The wet came through the horizontal boarding the heads of the windows. The boards had shrunk. The wet came into the spire at the valleys and the hips.. He repaired it and received £33 1 2s. lOd. in payment, according to the account now produced. The work is watertight now. The zinc was used for flushing. The spire might have been executed in a workmanlike manner, but it was not finished or it could not have leaked To Mr. Kingdon : I know nothing of the contract, or whether £70 was sufficient for it. The Bench: You can't Repudiate your own contract. To Mr. Kingdon: I found the wet coming in the joints, and the wind blew it right over them. The boards were raboted three-quarters of an inch. I was not supposed to know who built the spire. I have never seen the contract or specification. Christopher Frank, carpenter: I was present when defendant undertook the building of the spire, and when he inspected it afterwards. It was leaking, and he said he knew not what to do. He did not object that his contract had been altered at all. He admitted the leakage. The alteration in the contract did not cause the leakage. It was leaking all over above the alterations. Rev. M. Garin : At the time the alterations were agreed to the defendant never suggested that they had caused a leakage. Mr. Kingdon said* he was sorry an attempt had been made to erect a spire with insufficient raeans. It had been proved that an inspector had been called in according to the contract. The spire ought to have been covered with lead or shingles in the first place, but this was the fault of the committee, who, however, paid the money, thus proving they were satisfied with the work. C. W. Moore : The instalments in the contract were regularly paid, with one or two exceptions. No complaint was made of the work when completed, except to a bar which they agreed to pay me for. The scaffold was taken down by Mr. G arm's wisK When Mr. Garin complained of the leakage I always went. The spire could not have been repaired Avithout a scaffold. Mr. Garin refused to let me repair it unless I signed for three months longer. The leakage was caused by the packing, of which I disapproved when I went up. I saw water flowing from the pointing of the shingles. I went to cure the leakage but was not allowed to do so. On the 27th July, or the 29th, Mr. Lightfoot commenced to look at it. I went every time I received notice. I was prevented from workipg by the committee who refused to accept tenders. I gave in for galvanized iron. I was always willing to do the work. Before the three months had expired I went with my men to do the work and was refused. The work would not have stood as it was originally intended to execute it. The Magistrate thought two-thirds of the labor would be a fair sum.°Hc could not allow for shingles, lead, and painting, which were permanent advantages. Judgment for plaintiff £8 9s. Cd.