MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 240, 18 October 1901, Page 1

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M.)

UNDEFENDED CASKS

In tiie undefended case ‘James Erskitie v. Pakehi, claim for £l2 Os sd, judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs XT 15s 6d. Mr R. N. Jones appeared for the plaintiff. A SCRUB CUTTING CONTIUCT.

In the case of William Hensuaw v. William Eogers, claim for Xls 11s 2d, balance due on a scrub cutting contract for £2l, Mr E. A. Eees appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Jones for defendant. Mr Eees said that the claim was for wages for labor. Plaintiff was employed to cut scrub, but owing to defendant wishing to have certain strips left, the work was taken at the low price of 14s an acre.

Mr Jones said that it was not admitted that the contract was to clear the land at so much per acre, but it was agreed that £2l should be allowed to clear the 80 acres, and that the contract being one contract, and indivisible, the parties were not entitled to claim on a portion. William Henshaw stated that he and a man named Edwards arranged to cut manuka and light bush for defendant. The area was supposed to be 80 acres, which they agreed to do for ATI. There were 10 acres which defendant did not require cutting. Ilis mate Edwards fell sick, so witness carried the job on, and he worked fifty days after Edwards left. When they took the contract, they expected to cut it out in 2o days. Witness told defendant that he would finish by a certain date, and he appeared satisfied. Thomas Edwards, stableman, gave corroborative evidence. After walking over the land witness stated to Mr Eogers that they would do it for 17s an acre. Defendant refused to give this, stating that he considered there were 40 acres in the

piece, 10 acres having nothing on it. Witness stated that they could not make a clean job at 14s an acre, as offered by defendant. Eogers reoliei that he did nut expect a clean job made of the work, as he only wanted the big stuff cut. The plaintiff agreed to do the work at 14s an acre, or £2l for the job. Witness had been over the job last Sunday, and found the work had been done according to arrangement. He had been all his life at the work, and he had seen scrub cut like this before.

Mr Jones contended that, although the plaintiff had done a fair amount of work, they could not possibly pass the work. The defendant did not expect the plaintiff to clear the ground as clean as the flcjbr, but they submitted that the job was not

done in a workmanlike manner. The contract was one indivisible job to do the work for £2l.

Edward Douglas Bilham, Waimata, stated that he had considerable experience in scrub-cutting. He passed Mr Rogers’ place several times, and he was of opinion that the work could have been clone better.

By Mr Eees: Portions of the land could have been cut better, so as to carry fire. Ten acres were in that condition. He estimated that the value of the work done was XlO to .£l2.

By the Bench : It would take another £8 or £9 to finish the job. John Robert Liddell, sheep-farmer, Waimata, stated he knew the place in question. It would take £9 or £lO to complete the job. By Mr Jones : He had heard the previous witnesses’ statement as to what the conditions were, and these conditions would not alter his ideas as to the manner in which the work wasjdone.

Mm. Rogers, defendant, warranted the circumstances of the letting of the contract, which had been let in one job for £2l. The work had not been done to his satisfaction.

By Mr Rees : The only complaint he had ever made to plaintiff was about some scrub being left near the road, which was attended to. He was complaining now by not paying out on the job. Plain-

iiff asked defendant to appoint a man so value the work done, and he would do she same.

By Mr Bees : His brother paid Jt2 of the amount given plaintiff by cheque. Mr Jones submitted that under the circumstances he would ask that the defendant should not be mulcted in costs.

Mr Roes said he hoped His Worship would take into consideration the fact that, although defendant had worked near the plaintiff all the time, he had not made any complaint as to the way the job was being done. His Worship was of opinion that the contract was an indivisible one, but it was a case in which he would be justified in applying the equity of conscience clause in the Magistrate’s Act. He assessed the amount of the work done at £li, groceries 2s lOd, less credits £5 11s Bd, leaving a judgment for J6B 11s 2d. Costs were allowed amounting to £2 7s.