SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7264, 25 January 1889, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PBIUS. Thursday, January 24. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Ward.l The Court re-opened at 10.30 a.m. O'MALLKY V KNIGHT AND HONEYBONE. In this case Peter O'Malley was plaintiff and Wm. Knight and Peter Honeybone, trading as Knight and Honeybone, defendants. The statement of claim alleged that the plaintiff eDtered into an agreement with the defendants, who were contractors for building the Sumner extension of the Canterbury Tramway Company's line, to remove a certain quantity of earth, &c, amounting to six chains, and build a portion of the sea-wall along the six chains. The defendants undertook to pay plaintiff Is id per cubic yard for the rock and earth removed. The plaintiff further alleged that he entered into a second agreement to remove a a further quantity of three chains of earth, &c, and to build an outer wall along the same distance at the same rate as the first contract. The plaintiff alleged that he had completed all the work, and that he had excavated 4495 cubic yards of stuff. The defendants paid the plaintiff £143 Ss 6d on account of his contract, and he alleged that there was still £118 las Sd due and owing, for which the plaintiff now sued. The statement of defence admitted that the plaintiff had done the work, but alleged that the amount of rock, &c, removed by plaintiff was 3500 yds, and not 4495yd5, as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants further alleged that the amount payable on the work was Is 2d per yard for 3344, amounting to £195 Is 4d, and 156 yds ac 10d, which amounted to £6 10s, and that they had paid to the plaintiff in money and goods £149 4s 7d on account of the contract. The defendants denied owing the plaintiff £118 15s Bd, but admitted his claim for £52 6s 9d, which was paid into Court.

Mr Loughnan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Wynn - Williams for the defendants.

The case, divested of legal technicalities, was simply a dispute as to the measurement of the work done by the plaintiff, he alleging that he carried out certain extra work under instructions which made up the total amount of his claim.

Mr Loughnan opened his case, and called evidence in support of the plaintiff s claim.

The witnesses examined were Messrs P. CMalley, Mills, Hogan, Crawford, and W. Kitson.

This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Wynn Williams called the following witnesses for the defendant: —Messrs J. G. Warner, E. Harman, W. Knignt, and Thomas Hall.

Mr Williams then addressed the Court for the defendant.

Mr Loughnan replied, and his Honor summed up, giving judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed without costs.

The Court then adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.