MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7865, 16 May 1891, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

(Before H. S. Wardoll, Esq., R.M.)

Civil Case.—Cox v Waiau County C?oan> oil, claim £25. Mr Stringer for plaintiff, Mr Joynt for defendants. The plaintiff alleged that in June, 1999, the Council let to Doe SiTaley contract to form and metal c. X-O&<1- VV2ai2© tlze work -was iix progxesa plaintiP ilipjled Slliley wltll leil Keffl, for which Sibley, in October, gave an order for £25 on the Council Tho Council, however, although holding more monoy due to Sibley, refused to pny tHe order, Yvs WWY PWI orders of a subseauent dat». About this time Sibley abandoned his contract, and the Council took up the work. Later on the Council gave notice to plaintiS and others that they nod in hand J&59 due to Sibley, which, they -were ready to distribute pro rata among his creditors, Pliuntiff declined to accept this arrangement, a'fti now brought his action to recover tbo total sum named in the order. The defence was that neither at the time the order was presented nor afterwards was the amouat of it due to Sibley. The other orders alleged to having been given preference were paid in error. Before or at the time of their payment he was not only overdrawn, but he was liable to a considerable amount as penalties for non-compliance with the provisions of the contract. After evidence and argument judgment whb give? for plaintiff for £20, with coats.