RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Bruce Herald, Volume XI, Issue 1081, 24 January 1879, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

BALCLTJTHA. Wednesday, January 22. (Before E. H. Oarew Esq., E.M.) EOBERTS V. HAYES. Mr Taylor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr I). Reid for defendant. . Mr , Taylor applied for an adjournment tiH Wednesday next. Mr ißeiui would hot object, but asked for expenlj||||ncurred by his client in attending th^fourt that day. The Bench granted the adjournment asked for, allowing defendant £4 for his expenses. •■•_■'•■■■'■ .. ' . "' " '■'■;■'" ib^is t kbid. ■ Mr Henderson for plaintiff. ; This was an action brought by plaintiff tqrecover £22 18s 6d on a promissorynote. : '^Pfendant did not appear. Decree in absence for full amount claimed and costs. M'IACHLAN :. Y. FINLATSOX. Adjourned on defendants' application till the last Wednesday in February. ; IpOTTON T. TJVITSE. An action brought by plaintiff, a painter and paperhanger in Kaitangata to recover the sum of £5%L7s lOi from defendant, a bootmaker, also at Kaitangata, alleged due for material supplied in papering defendant's house. ~ H Cotton deposed that he had entered intoj|jiub-contract with Messrs MvKinlay andpfrair, the contractors for the building, for the papering of that house. The materialwas to have been supplied by Mr Dunne. Mr Dunne called on plaintiff at his shop and chose the pattern of paper required. Mr Dunne supplied the scrimming. flit was distinctly understood that his contract was for labour only, and that the defendantjiras to supply the material. He had been payed for the labour but not for material. He had received no distinct order for the paper from Mr Dunne not thinking it necessary as Messrs M'Kinlay and Muir bad stated on letting him the sub-contract it was agreed the defendant should pay for the paper and other requis ites; ■'>■■■•'■-••■'•■■■■ - ■ r'"r-- ; James Muir— l am partner in the firm Sbtv M'Kinlay and Muir. I remember into a contract with Mr Dunae fiov th^^rection of his house. I let the contract for the spouting and papering to Mr Cotton; I dicfc.so, stating th&t Mr Dunne was to supply material — that was the agreement ; . we had no written contract, but only a verbal agreement. Mr M'Kinley, partner in the firm of M'Kinlay, deposed that it was thoroughly understood by him that defendant was to pay for material ; had that hot been the case, he would not have allowed defendant- to chose whatever papers he wished indiscriminately, without any regard to cost. Mr Dunne— l am defendant in the actiofl The contract was for the erection and completion of ithe; house. I did not fegree to pay for^apejrs; : vl gave plaintiff np| order for themi^M^ cou'd go and choose the papers* I did so, and gave the, patterni to Muir; with lia^-^ choice marked: > After counsel had spoken, His Worship said that it was clear no order had been given for the material in question. The act of merely choosing the papers in the plaintiff's shop did not amount to an order. He would therefore nonsuit the plaintiff, leaving counsel to arrange about oosts. ? * '• CEOSS AND PORTIB V. PSBBT. Another, case was called, but as there was no appearance on either tide, the Cou,rt lose.