SUPREME COURT.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIII, Issue 143, 15 June 1909, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

'(Before His Honor Mr Justice Cooper.) ■BERTHA PAINE v. CORRY AND CO. A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT. Counsel for the plaintiff moved for judgment for the instalments and interest due on the purchase of a wharf and grain store. Mr Blair, who appeared for defendant, objected to the motion on the ground that he contended that the plaintiff undertook to reinstate the /whole structure, which had not been jdone. Mr Nichol, contractor for the work, said he only contracted to re-instate the store. Mr Brown gave evidence as to inspecting the building. He said there ,was a hole dug into the bank alongside the steps. The hole was possibly made there when the wharf was built, *r shortly after. As far as he knew ■nothing was done to strengthen the staging. They-were told that the .wharf had nothing to do with them. His report only dealt with the shed. Whe wharf had gone over towards the iriver. The shed had not fallen away from the wharf. Taking the wharf .and shed as one he did not think the had anything to do with the gshed. He was sure' the corner pile jvvas not in its present state when he examined the shed previously. Excepting this pile, the whole thing was all right. He could not remember if he (wrote out the certificate. If he underffcbok # to repair the^ shed he would not {repair the wharf, unless it 'were specially stipulated.

John J. Ward agreed with the evidence given by Mr Brown. To Mr Blair: At the time he gave Ms certificate there was a probability ffchat the corner would bear any grain iweight. There was a probability of course, that the whole place would be .washed away. One corner of .the Avharf seemed to be of unstable foundation. He would be prepared to say that the structure would hold any reasonable grain weight, with the exception of one corner. He thought that the subsidence of the corner pile had 'been caused by an erosion of the 'river. Mr INJichol re-called said he would ."Undertake to reinstate the defective pile for £2, and was certain that it iwould carry any reasonable weight of grain. Mr Blair would not agree to that. His Honour asked Mr Nichol if he •jvould do the work for £5. Mr Nichol said he would. His Honour then asked Mr Brown if he would give a certificate for the Uvork when it was done. Mr Brown agreed to do so, to which Mr Blair agreed. The question as to the motion was (then brought, and Mr Blair intimated that he had not had time to go into Ithe figures, and his Honour suggested that the Court adjourn until to-mor-row morning to enable counsel to jcheck the figures. He also intimated (that he would not give judgment until some agreement was arrived at by. the parties. The Court then rose.