HASTINGS S.M. COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 11128, 21 January 1899, Page 4

HASTINGS S.M. COURT.

Friday, January 20. [Boforo Mv A. Turnbull, SJM.] civil casks. Judgment for plaintiff waa given in the following cases : — l'aulknor, Linney, and 'I'osswill v. Coa Boyle, claim 7b Gd, costs r>B ; Beck and Co. M. Brandon, claim £1 12s Gd, costs Us; G. Niuiuiannv. Arihi To Nairn, claim l<)s, costs 8s Od ; Ulyllio and Co. v. same, cluiui S3, costs -£1 6b fid ; I'Viulknor, Linney, and Tosswill v. llenare Tomoana, claim 7& 6d, costs 8s 6d ; G, Ebbett v, Honora Quin-

livan, olaim £3 is 4d, costs 0b ; K. Nairn v. Mera Taki, claim £1 Is, costs 7s 6d. i lm .ifTJDaWftNT ItiMMONSlis. E. Beck v. F. Clay, olaim 414 Is on judgment summons. After examination of the defendant by Mr Dinwiddie the case was adjourned until the 14th ADril to see if defendant could pay further"instalments, AM.KQE6 ijftEAmt op BORtlValt BtE ... .. fiX Arthur Vile and Hugh Whyte were charged with causing an obstruction on the roadway, Mr Soannell appeared for Mr Vile and Mr Dinwiddie for Mr Whyte. Constable Smith gav.e,. evidence, that on *c gfth December ge bt-owd .WaSjittracrad by the Salvation Army, and owing to complaints made to him by the Mayor he gave instructions for the people to be requested to move on. He spoke to the defendants but they refused to move. As they would not he took their names. Defendants stayed in the same spot ten minutes after being spoken to. Mr Vile drew his attention to three gentlemen standing at an opposite corner, and witness requested them to move on) which they did. Whyte had subsequently said to him he would have moved on but Vile refused to, and he did not care to gd Witness never said to Whyte "it Would have been all right if Vile Had not .fee&n tllSre." W. _J. Butler, constable, corroborated the evidence of Constable Smith. After cross-examination of the witnesses by counsel, the Bench dismissed the information. ARTESIAN WELL SINKING CASE. W. Clarke (Mr Dinwiddie) v. Mrs E. Chapman (Mr W. J. White), claim .£l4, for Biijkingitn drtesiaii well. This case turned oil the question whether ' Clarke had given a guarantee for a flow of water. This he denied. He stated he had considerable experience in well-sink-ing, and informed the defendant that there was little probability of obtaining water at the spot where he was directed to put the well. After working eight days, the usual time for getting to the water source being two or three, there was water in the pipe, and he puta pomp j on, as he was satisfied it was no use going deeper. He understood M'llroy had been asked to look after the well for Mrs Chapman. Six months after sinking the well he again went and drove the pipe down a further 18 inches, and water then rose about eight inches from the ground. He put a tap on, and there was a flow of water. J. Baines and W. Cheer gave corroborative evidence, the latter witness stating that he was present when Clarke said there was no certainty of getting water. G-. Ebbett and T. Doney also gave evidence as to wells sunk on a certain area near this well where water was not obtainable. Mrs Elizabeth Chapman deposed that Clarke said he could guarantee water. She told him that Mr M'llroy would have to pass the well, as she knew nothing of the work," before payment, and Clarke agreed. When Clarke asked for payment she told him he must get M'llroy to pass it. J. M'llroy said that he had refused to pass the well as he understood that Clarke had guaranteed to get a flow of water, and this had not been obtained. He had a well in close proximity, where a good supply was obtained. Thomas Leipst, well-sinker, stated he had been asked to tender for the job, but that he was too busy. On being pressed by counsel he admitted that he would not guarantee water at the place in question. Judgment was given for the full amount olaimed, .£l4 Is, costs £1 Bs, solicitor .£1 6s, witnesses Baines and Cheer 7s 6d each and Doney 6s ; total, .£l7 16s.