MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3863, 12 June 1873, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, June 11. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) Lahceny. —James Carmichael, a boy about twelve years of age, who had previously been before the Court on a charge of stealing eggs, was again brought up on a charge of larceny. The following evidence was taken : —Constable Walls: About eight o’clock last night 1 heard that prisoner had committed larceny at Mr Palmer’s, on the Papanui road. He ran away, but I chased and caught him. He said he had not been near Mr Palmer’s place He admitted having spent money during the day. James Palmer: I keep a shop on the Papanui road. Prisoner had been in my employ for some time. I dismissed him about three months ago. I left my shop at half-past eight o’clock a.m. yesterday. At this time there was about £1 in my desk. I left a boy named Woodard in the shop. I returned to the shop at 12 o’clock, I examined the desk, and found the money had been taken, I went upstairs, and found the boxes turned over. Prisoner had no right on the premises. Betsy Woodard: My son was in charge of Palmer’s shop. I went in search of tho prisoner, and found him near Coker’s Hotel, I asked him if he was Carmichael, and he said yes, and dared me to touch him. He said he had Is 6d, a purse, and a match box. I gave him in charge. Harriet Mansell: I live in Kilmore street west. I saw the prisoner in a right-of-way coming out of Mr Palmer’s gate about eleven o’clock yesterday. Inspector Pender said this was all the evidence ready in this case at present, and as there were also some other charges against prisoner, he would ask for a remand until Friday next. His Worship granted the remand as applied for.

Civil Cases.—E. H. Wood v. J. S. M. Jacobsen —In this case, plaintiff claimed £26 16s for damage alleged to have been aua* tained by reason of the defendant’s negligence in properly superintending erection of building in Cashel street, Christchurch, and negligently and improperly giving a certificate that the work had been done. Mr Garrick appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Clarke for the defendant. The plaintiff stated that he had employed defendant as an architect for a certain building, and that the contract was let to defendant’s son. Defendant gave a certificate that the contract had been properly fulfilled, which was not the case. He made the claim on account of extras, because the work was part of the contract. He had objected to pay the items, but the architect’s certificate being binding, a writ had been issued, and he was compelled to pay the money. All the items, though certified to be extras, were, he contended, included in the specification for the building. S. C. Farr, architect, sworn, said he had made an examination of the building, and found that the work as a whole was badly done. Rutland, builder, said he had examined the building, and found that the windows and doors were not done in a workmanlike manner. It would cost about £3O to put these items in properly according to the specification. The house was not finished according to specification, and he (witness) would not have passed it as properly done. Samuel Clarkson said he was a builder of about eighteen years’ experience. He had examined Mr Wood’s house and considered it was badly put together. The doors and windows were too small for the frames. The whole of the joiners’ work has been done in a slovenly manner. It would cost between £2O and £3O to put the work right. George Froggarb • said, he cleaned off the floor in the passage and on the verandah. He found that this work had been badly done. A great deal of the work was roughly done. None of the nails in the floor of the passage had been punched home. In defence, J. S. M. Jacobsen said, plaintiff wanted him to move an old building and add a new part. He contended that all the extras were not included in the specification. The work was done well according to the character of the house. It had been in accordance with the specification. He allowed his son (the contractor) for extraa ordered by plaintiff during the progress of the work. The contractor drew up the specification. The learned counsel having addressed the Bench, His Worship said the Court could only recognise the plan and specification, and plaintiff could only rely upon the architect’s certificate for the work being properly done. The Bench considered tha amount on account of the extras was fairly claimed. Tho sum of £lO would also be allowed as damages against the architect, for wrongly certifying that the contract had been properly carried out, and judgment would therefore be given for £l6 16s, with costs, £5 7 a.— W. Sycamore v. Thomas Mavis. —Claim, £2O 3s 4d. Mr Joynt for the defendant. Plaintiff non-suited, with costs, 30s.—P. A. Halkett v. William Parker and William John Parker. —Claim, £25. Mr Helmore for the plaintiff. Judgment for full amount, and costs, £5 4a Middleton and Co. v. T. W. Stead. —Claim, £79 lls lid. Mr Jameson for the plaintiff, and Mr Slater for defendant. Plaintiff nonsuited, with costs, £4 5s. —Same v. Same.—> Claim, £2l lls 7d. Mr Jameson for tho plaintiff, and Mr Slater for the defendant. Plaintiff non-suited, with costs, £3 13s.— M'Lean and Middleton v. Same.—Claim, £29, tendered 16s Id. Mr Jameson for the plaintiff, and Mr Slater for the defendant. Judgment for 16s Id ; plaintiff to pay costs, £6 16s. LYTTELTON. (Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.) Continued Drunkenness. —Mary Maull, charged with this offence, and against whom there had been three previous convictions,, was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour.