MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1592, 24 June 1887, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON— FRIDAY.

(Before Mr H. O. S. Baddeley, R.M.)

CIVIL OASES.

W. C. Harrison v T. Blackburn, claim £2 12s 6d.— Mr Oathberlßon for p'aintiff, Mr OaygUl for defendant.— This was a ease In whloh the plaintiff alleged that he executed a eontraot for shingle filling fei the defendant. He had done 498 yards at 3d, and had received £3 12b on account. — By Mr Oaygill : A man named Flnlay, who was working with plaintiff as a mate, had quite as muoh to do with tha eontraot as witness had. If witness succeeded with the present olaim half the amount would go to Finlay.— In answer to the Bench, the witness said that Blackburn locked entirely to him for the performance of the contract, Defendant and one of his men occasionally assisted m filling, but it was an nnderstood thing, at the time the eontraot was made, that they should do so. — Flnlay gave evidence to the effect that he had been employed byHarrJson. Witness went to Blackburn for some money, but he refused, saying that witness was not the contractor. Subsequently, however, Blackburn gave witness some money.— Xvldenbe was called for tbe defenoe to fhe following effeot : — Thomas Blackburn said that- he made no bargain with Harrison prior to seeing Flnlay, and he made the oontraot with both. It was arranged that Harrison, Finlay and Skilling were to do the filling, the latter to receive a third of the oontraot prioe. It was not intended that Skllllng's. and witness's labor should be thrown ln for nothing. After the plaintiff had gone •way witness and Skilling mea3uaed tb.3 load and fonnd that only 468 yards had been spread. Harrison and Flolay were not entitled to the full amount of 3d on the quantity spread bn. only to two thirds. —Henry Cashmere gave evidenoe c? to fhe custom generally observed ln regard to shingle filling. — Judgment waß given for plaintiff for the amount claimed.

Rotter v Druey, ciaim £4 10a, and same v aamey olaim £2 93 6d, and Druey v Rutter, claim £6 2s 21,— Me Oayglll for Ratter and Mr Pnrnell for Druey.— Mra Rotter gave evidence to the effeot that defendant's wife and child stayed at her boarding-bouse for three weeVs for which ■he chsrged at the rate of £110s — The olaim of £2 9a 6d for pigs was admitted I by Druey m his evidence, but he objeoted to the charge for driving. The olaim for board he considered excessive ; a fair •mount m his opinion being from 12s to 15s » week for a woman and child— J Rayoraft, boarding-house keeper at Rakala, thought a fair charge for board •nd lodging for woman would be 18s. — In the oase Rotter v Druey, olaim £4 10a, jadgmenfc waa given for plaintiff far £2 14s 4d.— Tho ecae, Druey v Rutrer was next heard. Thb was a oase In which the plaint fi clainced the sum of £6 2s 21 for goods alleged to have been supplied. He gave particulars of the items of his olaim and was orossexamined d an reexamined at length, the Benoh -and eonsel engaged frequently being In considerable donbt ss to what the witness meant.— C. Dud ford gave evidence— The defendant objeoted to most of the Items of the acoount. G. Shellock gave evidence, and the Magistrate gave . judgment for the items admitted by defendant, £4 9i 2d— ln the pig or se judgment went for plaintiff, the claim with regard to the driving fees being waived. DBU4KBNKBBS. A first offender for having been drank at the Railway Station wn fined 20a and costs. ; The Court then rose.