MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21254, 8 November 1932, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.), DEFAULT CASES. Judgment was granted for plaintiffs, by default, with costs, in the following cases:—Commissioner of Taxes v, Peter, Johnstone Neilson, 6s 3d, income tax due; C. H. M'Lean v. A. B. Johnston,, £ls 10s sd, goods supplied; John Ed* mond Ltd. v. W. Shearer (Wingatui), £l2 19s lOd, goods supplied. PAPERHANGING DISPUTE. Thomas James Downes proceeded against Iris Amelia Hawes on a claim for £4, the balance of a contract price for papering done at a house owned by the defendant. The contract price was. £B, and two instalments of £2 each had been paid, leaving a balance of £4, Mr C. M. Barnett appeared for the plaintiff and Mr C. L. Calvert for the defendant. . . Evidence was _ given by plaintiff re* garding the choice of papers, the work done, and the dispute over the payment. Mr Calvert asked for a non-suit. It was abundantly clear, he said, that the contract, as entered into, had not been performed, and had been deliberately performed in a different manner from that contracted. His Worship said he agreed with Mr Calvert to a certain extent, bub there was another element that entered' into it—-had the defendant not accepted the work done? Two instalments were paid and there was also the plaintiff’s account of a conversation in which the defendant was apparently prepared to settle the matter in consideration of a reduction of £l. Defendant gave evidence that only one of the papers chosen had been pub up She paid the two instalments before she saw the work. When she saw, the house she was very dissatisfied. His Worship said there was no need for defendant to call further evidence. Clearly there had been a departure from the contract. The plaintiff could nob recover unless he had earned out his work. That had not been done, and there had been acquiesence by defendant in any matter m which he had departed from his contract. Ihe payments were made before the defendant had had an opportunity of inspecting the work, and the evidence had not shown that there had been any offer to compromise. Plaintiff must be non* suited, with costs (£1 Us).