RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Mataura Ensign, Volume V, Issue 224, 26 January 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

_ ♦ ■ ■■- -■■'•• MATAURA. Tuesday, 23rd January, 1883. (Before H. McOallooh, Esq., R.M.) Mac Gibbon and Sona v. Hunt. Claim £9 8s 3d. Mr Johnston for plaintiffs. Judg, ment for amount claimed with costs of court 17s and solicitor's fee £1 Is, Same v. Herriott, Judgment summons for £6 9s 6d, Mr Johnston for plaintiffs. Defendant was ordered to pay 30s a month, in default 14 days imprisonment ; first pay* ment to be mada on the 23rd February. Costs Bs. Templeton v. Johnston. Claim £6 13s 9d. Defendant had forwarded a cheque for the amount of the claim only, and judgment was therefore entered for the costs of court* 28s. McLean v. Sullivan. Claim £75 damages for breach of contract. Mr Henderson for plaintiff ; Mr Johnston for defendant. Duncan McLean, plaintiff, sworn, said :— In the end of October last, at Mr Sullivan's request, I prepared rough sketch plans of addition to be made to his hotel. I also prepared specifications and gave an estimate of the cost. He accepted my estimate and we agreed that 1 should put up the addition and find the material for £247 10a. The work was to be finished by Christmas. It wag arranged that defendant was to deposit £247 10s in any bank to be drawn by me upon completion of the work ; the same to be certified to by any competent Inspector appointed by defendant. After this arrangement had been come to I sent for material and prepared to carry out the contract. I ordered timber from Mr Diok, agent for Mr Murdoch of the Gordon Timber yards, but he could not, supply it for a fortnight, Mr Sullivan could not wait so long and I therefore ordered from the Gladstone mills. The timber came to hand at Gore in three days. After the timber had arrived Mr Sullivan told me he did not want the addition made. Notwithstanding this he instructed Mr Burwell, of Invert 1 oargill, to prepare fresh plans for an addition. I had been put to considerable expense in the matter, having paid £46 30a for the timber; railway oarriage £12 Is discharging timber from trucks between £4 and £5. I also claim £10 16s for my own labor and compensation for loss of time. The timber ordered is suitable only for work of a similar kind to that for which it was ordered. It was ordered in special lengths for special work and although it might be worked in in other ways it would be at considerable loss. Cross-examined by Mr Johnston, The arrangement with Mr Sullivan was made about the beginning of Nov. and the timber was at the railway station on the 16th Novem* ber, The contract would have occupied me about four weeks. Two days after the timber came to hand Mr Sullivan told me not to go on with the work as, he said, he did not want the addition made. I asked him to take the timber off my hands but he refused to do so. Had I submitted the timber for sale at the time of the breach of contract it would have realised the price I paid for it with cost of oarriage included^ ; Thomas Latham, builder, \deposed that : some of the timber ordered \ as of unusual lengths. ' .^^roßS-exarained by Mr Jphm ton. I do not think the timber^ i adt(TߥWfcbanfy>woul(L have realised .the invoice ! pribfa^ I Taking the average it would; not have/realised within 20 per cent, of invoice prices^ This was pl&intiff's case./ Mr Johnston did not propose to call any evidence and contended that; ; the plaintiff's own evidenoe justified him in asking for judgment for the defendant. , His Worship said tbat when plaintiff found defendant had broken his contract he should have immediately advertised the timber for sale by auotion, and if there had been any deficiency on the invoice prioe paid for the timber, that deficiency would have been hiß (plaintiff's) actual loss. He thought if the timber had been sold the plaintiff would have sustained a loss of SO per cent. .; that was the opinion of a steady, reliable and practical man, and His Worship was also of opinion that the timber could not have been sold except at some loss. Judgment would be given therefore for £12 2s, that being a^ the rate of 20 per oent off the first cost of the timber ; £2 for plaintiff's loss of time, Ao > Costs were not allowed. Webb v. Hamilton. Claim 14a for money lent and concert tickets given to de. f endant to sell fox a concert in aid of the Atheneeum (Matanra). James A. Webb deposed that he had given defendant the tickets to sell but that tb c money for them had not been forthcoming nor had the tickets been returned. He saw defendant take delivery of the tickets, — Hamilton, deposed that he had reoeived tiokets from Mr Black and that next morn* ing Blaok instructed him to hand them over to Mr Sinclair who took them away and sold them. Blaok was assisting Web in getting up the concert. Hiß Worship said plaintiff could only recover 6s shillings for money lent. By plaintiffs own showing Blaok was acting with him as a promoter of the concert and it was upon Blacks authority that defendant had given the tickets to a third party. Judgment for 6s. Pollook v. Webb. Claim £3 3s. Id. for goods supplied. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed with cost of court 7s. The oourt rose at 12. 30 p.m.