Permanent link to this item
DISTRICT COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 628, 5 May 1882
ASHBURTON— To-day. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) Moran and others v. Patton. Claim, L 134 7s. Mr Wilding appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr Garrick (in the absence of Mr Holmes) for the defendant. The claim was made for the balance of a contract entered into between the parties for stocking, stacking, and carting certain grain grown on 1140 acres of land belonging to the defendant. Air Wilding applied to have the plaint amended in certain particulars.—His Honor allowed the corrections, Mr Garrick consenting.—Mr Wilding said the claim was made for 4s 6d per acre for all the grain, whether stacked or carted to the threshing machine. There was a set-off filed allowed, amounting to L2B Its 6d, which reduced the claim to LlO5 11s Gd. He claimed the amount on quantum merrAL —Mr Garrick said that his learned friend should bo admitted to amend his claim as he wanted to plead to a claim on the whole amount of contract whether performed or not—His Honor said that Mr Wilding should state the particulars of each claim, whether for stacking, carting, or stocking. Was it possible for him (His Honor) to define the quantities if they were not stated in the plaint '1 The question would bo to fix the amount quantum meruit as to carting, and on the contract for tho stacking. Mr Wilding at this stage asked to ho allowed to hare the case stand over to amend the plaint as suggested by His Honor. Nelson and Coutts v. W. B, Compton. Claim, L6lB IGs lid. Air Branson for plaintiffs, Mr Garrick for the defendant This was a claim for building a horse b zaar at Methven for the defendant. The (Viewing evidence was adduced.—S. B Nelson deposed to being one of the pla n-
tiffs in a contract to build a horse bazaar at Metbven. Met the defendant in Ashburton, who told wit ness that he had LSOO to spend, and wanted a place put up like Mr Bullock’s Bazaar. Witness went up to defendant’s house at Methven on November 2nd, to arrange for the particulars of the building, when they took down the quantities, and witness arranged to build it for LSOO. They went by a photograph of Mr Bullock’s building. There were no specifications. They drew out a plan of the proposed building. Witness and defendant had only a verbal agreement. The plaintiffs completed the work. The timber was ordered from Hayes’ yards, the account of wh’oh he produced. The iron and kami timber came from G. Kelsey and Co.’s. Hie account for wrought iron, L 9 3s 9d, was also produced. [Witness here produced a number of other accounts (including freight of - timber, etc., used in ihe building) which amounted altogether 10 L64S 6s lid.] Defendant gave wuness L3OO on account of the building, as pare payment, and no other su <is had been paid.—By Mr Garrick : tiuUocd., Bazaar is in Burnett street, Ashburton. Went to Methven, and arranged to erect a bazaar like Bullock’s for Ijsoo. Agreed to expend the sum as economically as possible, and if .here was to be a profit or loss he was to stand by it. The timber amounting to L 329 was, to the best of witness’s belief, all used in the building. Was competent as a builder to set out and erect such a building in a proper manner. Knew that Mr Stanley Bruce had been asked to inspect the building. The stringers were quite strong enough to carry the floor. Had made some alterations as suggested by Mr Bruce. The principals do not require more ironwork. The work was strong, but timber may have shrunk. It was put together in a workmanlike manner.—G. Cm'd give evidence on behalf of the plain, iff* as to the work done.—W. H, Collins, manager for A. Hayes, timber merchant, said he supplied Nelson and Coutts with the timber for the bazaar at Methven. The account for same was correct as produced. —By Mr Garrick ; Would swear that the timber sent up was ordinarily good.—A. McTaggart. carpenter, said the bazaar erected at Methven was a similar one to that shown on t.he photograph produced. Was engaged six weeks on the job._ The work was that usually done on a job of that kmd.—This was the case for the plaintiffs.—W. de B. Compton said he agreed with the plaintiffs to erect a building like Mr Bullock’s in Ashburton for witness at Methven. The quantities
were taken out in witness’s house at Methven. The agreement was that plaintiff was to be paid L7O, and LI per 100 ft allowed for all the timber used in the building, or carted on the ground, and to all accounts for other material used in the building, to be paid when the building was passed, by the Building Society. The foundations of chimney were built on loose shingle, cemented only on the top, and the sides boarded up with timber, so that when the boards rotted, the chimney would fall down. Some of the timber ussd was very bad. The rafters were bad and also the weatherboards. The sliding doors were badly fitted, and the wet came through them in some places, witness employed Mr Bruce to pass the building, but the certificate was not given, consequently the Building Society would not give the money. By Mr Branson : Witness made objections in regard to the concrete used. The studs were cut too short and the studs were not fitted properly. Sent for Mr Bruce to give the certificate for another Ll5O on account of the building. Never promised Mr Nelson to give him the Ll5O if Mr Bruce passed the work. —Thomas Searell, architect, Christchurch, said he examined the building erected for Mr Compton. Had examined the foundation for the chimney, and there was no concrete used at all.
The result of this would be that the china
noy would come down. The floor was cut through in order to find this out. The wcatherboarding was very badly done. The bracing was only made out of f-inch battens, and the building would most
likely shake backwards and forwards in a nor’-west wind. Never saw a worse
building. [Witness here described at some length the various detects in the building to his opinion.]—By Mr Branson : The timber and material was badly put together. The concrete may be affected by a certain amount of clay mixed with the shingle. Was certain that the building would not keep up for six months.—Scrimgeur said that the shingle
under the chimney was not concrete but loose, and as soon as its boards decayed the shingle would run out.—Learned counsel addressed the Court.—His Honor said the evidence of Searell was important, but was given with a certain amount of bias. He thought that as the chimney’s foundation was boxed in with boards the rest of the building would, in all probability, be of a similar nature. As there hrd been a considerable sum shown to have been expended in the materials used, judgment would be for plaintiffs for Ll5O
without coats. Moran and ethers v. Patton.—This claim having been amended to read L 154 1 7s 6d, that sum being for stocking, carting, and stacking wheat and oats, the case came on again. Mr Wilding for plaintiff, in submitting the amended plaint, remarked that they had abandoned their claim of L2O for damages. The defendant had paid into Court LlO5, and they were suing for the balance. He would call James Quinn, who deposed that he was a contractor, and it was on a Monday in January, that he made a contract with defendant to harvest certain crops at Methven for him. Made the arrangement on behalf of himself and others. The agreement was for stocking and stacking at 4s 6d per acre, 3s 6d being for stacking. Defundant was to cut the crop and they (plaintiffs) were to start their contract as soon as the crops were ready. About 1,140 acres of crop were to be harvested in all. They were “to keep up with the machines. ” They put on six machines at first, and afterwards seven.—Michael Moran, another of the plafntiffs, deposed to hearing the terms of contract trora Patton, and to approving of them. They got to work on the day following their arrival on the scene of action, the day specified. They started at a place called Barker’s, when they were suddenly asked to give up stacking to carry grain to the machines. They afterwards went to Mount Hutt. The defendant afterwards wanted to reduce the price of carting from 3s 6d per acre to 2s. There was a disagreement between them and defendant said that unless they chose to accept his terms ho would not Jet them finish the contract. They did not come to terms, no more work was done, and hence the present action. The work was well done, and no fault was found with it. Several other of the plaintiffs gave evidence, one of whom seated that they were suing for the full amount of the work and not merely that done up to tho time the defendant broke the contract off. —For the defence, Patton, tho defendant, deposed that he had contracted with tho plaintiffs at 3s Gd an aero for stacking and carting, Is for stocking, and nothing was mentioned about carting grain to tho machine. —Judgment was given for LI4I 10s, inclusive of tho amount paid into Court, and costs. ; lx B vxKaoprcv.—An application of F. P. O’lleilly, solicitor, a bankrupt, fur order of discharge was granted. i The Court then rose. i
DISTRICT COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 628, 5 May 1882
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.
Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.
These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.
Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.
Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.
Print, save, zoom in and more.
If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.
The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.