SUPREME COURT-Civil Sittings This May.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 247, 20 October 1886, Page 5

SUPREME COURT-Civil Sittings This May.

(Beforo His Honor Mr Juatlco Word, and a Jury of twelve ) James Murdoch v. Auckland Bkick and Tii.f. Company, Limited.—Claim, SOW 5s ft^ for work done, etc., including £.-iOO for damage for broach of agreement. -Mr Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, .■md Mr Hut ton and Mr ltusscll for tho defendant compmiy. -Mr Cooper addressed the jury to the ell'eet that tho plainlill" was in the employ of the defendant company from December'JO in January ill. ISMi. and then earned wages amounting to ,&;i!l 18s (id. Tho other items of ilie claim were for danmgos, and for breach of contract. The leiirned counsel then rend a letter containing an Oiler of the plaintiff, calling attention to the state of certain sheds that would require an outlay on them of .eiO, and if this work was done

ItewouM make certain bricks at 20s iicr thousand. Mr Murdoch lmil repeatedly asked the company to fuliH their part of the rbnlnirt, and had lost thousands of bricks and hurt hail to relight tho kiln three times. On Juno I the uoiiivuiny had to get the plainti ll'lo make a new bargain with them us they cnuld not sell bricks at " the price already charged with advantage to the company." On !>th of August the manager of the company wrote to the plaimiU'aiid saiil ho and Mr Fowler were coming up to the works to sue him nml arrange with him as to money matters.—.lanu-s Murdoch, late manager of the company's works at Henderson, produced wages sheet, a copy of which be said about January had been sent lo AllCooper of the company in usual way. Had paid the £50 18a Gd mentioned therein in wages to the men whose names appear. All the work, save perhaps one or two items, was done In tho interest of tho Company, none in witness' interest as contractor! Ilia written offer to tho Company and their answer was here produced " and recognised by witness. On Jan. sth, Mr Cooper came up for the Company and was shown what required being done, and never disputed the pay sheet. Tho Company have done none of these things stipulated in niy oiler aeeepted by (hem. Great waste lo witness had been occasioned by this,-about CI.IO worth of bricks bad been spoilt as well ns loss of time. There not being sutlieient drying sheds or backboards, be had to till the kiln with (lamp brick.*, which were spoilt thereby: he lost I.'i.OUO bricks in that way. Was not actually making bricks in July, but was delivering and burning oil".

Had B'ino to groat expense, and was then or.lored by tlm Company to " shut down." Hud lOBt altogether £501 by thif.By Mr Button: Witness's rolicitors. Hughes and George, bad written a letter to iliu Company, claiming £170 Claim was never put before tho Board at that tlmo, or the dispute would ii'vor li'ivo nrleen. George Cozens, manager for Hasher's brick yard proved that there, worn orders to be obtained for bricks in Juno and July, but not at payable prices. Good orders were to lie bad from outsiders. —Wiiliam Schiller proved that lie worked from ttic 21th December to 18th .Inmiiry, repairing boiler and machinery for the Company, and

was paid by Mr IMurdock (the plaintiff).— Archie Chalmers slated also I bat he bad worked for the Company H3 hours between the L'l December and the olh or January and other dales The caao ended by tho d«fi>ndant company jonscutfn? to judgment for £150. with £5J coets.