CIVIL CASES

Manawatu Herald, Volume I, Issue 88, 4 July 1879, Page 2

CIVIL CASES

(Hefevp K. Ward, Esq., P.M.) Tho ndjuurned case of Macarthy v. Perreau was called. An argument took placo between Mr Staifce and his Worship, as to whether Macarthy could sue without Robinson, who was originally a partner in the contract. His Worship gave a nonsuit for non-joinder of Robinson, costs being allowed, 28s. ' W. H. Reeve v. Bowe, Birchley, and Co. —Claim £18 5s lOd, for balance of cost of carting wheels from ship Uydrabad to Hartley's. Mr Staite appeared for the plaintiff, and said his case was tint a contract had been entered into to cart certain wheels from the Hydrabad at 26s per ton. Tho work was completed, and the question of weight arose. One of the defendaais, Siangan, produced a receipt from the Wellington weighbridge, saying thnt the heavi* est weight was I4c»vt. 3qrs. und Hlbs ; it was afterwards found that the heaviest weight was 16cwt 3qrs. They sued defend, ants for £18 5s 10J, the balance of cost of carting the extra weight. — W. H. "Reeve, plaintiff, deposed — I agreed to cart the wheels for 2Os per ton ; the agreement was made in October ; there were no means of weighing the stuff before reaching Wellington, and we agreed to take payment at the rate of lOcwt for each wheel until they were weighed : whsn they went to Wellington, Mangan, one of the defendants, went down and saw the wheels weighed • we settled in November ; when we settled the three defendants were present ; Mangan, I believe, produced a ticket, and 3aid that heaviest wheel of the lot, weighed 14cwfc Sqra Hlbs ; in consequence of that, we rescinded the previous contract, and agreed to take los per wheel, being an average weight ; some time afterwards I found thot we had been treated unfairly, and that the heaviest wheel was lflcwt ; I told Bowe that I would sue him for the balance, but he said, " We have your signature, and you can do noihing 5" we hav9 received £56 os, but I consider we are entitled to £18 da lOd move, supposing the wheels to weigh as estimated ; I s.vear that I have lost money through the misrepresentation of defendants; I consider that 14cwt is the lowest weight ; those are the tickets I received from the Wellington weigher ; my suspicions were aroused by Birchley Haying that he would not allow the carters the same as they got; this was before the wheels were weighed.— Mr Staite said he was utterly unable to understand the evidence of this witness, and would accept ft nonsuit. — Case nonsuited with costs. W. H. Reeve and M'Co nville v. Bowe, Birchley & Cj.— Claim £100, for cost of removing three boilcr3 from the ship Uydiabad to Hartleys, and also for damage sustained through delay in fulfilment of contract on ihe part of defendants. Mr Staite appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Maclean for defendants. The evidence went to show that a verbal agreement was entered into by the plaintiffs with defendants to cart tlnvc lirge boilers from the ship Hydrabad to Hartley's for the sum of £70 ; the money to he piid directly the contract was finished. Tho agreement wj,s on a subse-.^^ quent date reduced to writing, but not stamped. Two of the boilers were taken to Hartley's from the ship, but considerable delay has been experienced in giving the plaintiffs the third, the agreement being that defendant.3 were to load the drays. Plaintiff Reeve swore that he had gone repeatedly to tho Hydrabad with his teams for the purpo33 of carting away the third boiler, but defendants would not place it on the dray, or were not prepared to do so. This evidence was corroborated by Kobert Reeve, Charles Symons, and Charles Symons, jun. Reeve said it was stated by Birohley that the three boilers would be delivered to them (i.fi., placed on their waggon) iv a week. M'Conville said the words used were, "as quick at possible;" bat Charles Symons said he bousfhc out M'Conville's sharo on tho understanding that th 9 boilers wera to be delivered to them in one week. M'Conville had been joined in the action, being a partner, without his consent, and in giving hit) evidence for the plaintiffs, showed himself quite hostile to tieeve, saying he did not warn, his money until the couiracb was finished, and did not care if it was not finished for a year ; he admitted that he is at present working for defendants, but indignantly denied that he had been bought over by the in to resist the action ; it waa stated by Reeve that M'Conville had been compensated for the delay by having other carting given him to do, but this was denied. The c ise occupied the Court the greater part of the day, and after the evidence for the plaintiff had been heard, the Court adj ourned at 4 pm. for a fortnight, when the hearing of the case will be resumed, Mr Maclean having stated that the case for the defence would be a very long one. N. Baitlet v. G. Cook. — Claim 7s. Settled out of Court. . D. Hughey v. A. Dowar — Claim .£l4 15s sd. J udgment exparle. . . T. Macarthy v. H. Davidson — Claim £3, for clearing out a dr.iin. Judgment cxparte for amount and costs. Hodder v. Crowther— Claim i' 4 7s, for grazing 2 horses at Is per week. Defend* ant paid £3 into Court, nud urged that £L per year was the price agreed upou. Judgment was given for £2 and costs, ss. Hodder v. I'taibertio— Claim £2 8a This was a similar case to the previous one. Judgment was given for Ml and coats, ss. W. H. Keeve v. Bowo and Co. — Claim £8 1 6s, for carting 350 posts. Mr Maclean confessed judgment on behalf • of jdefendants. The work had been done for KaWana Hutiia. Judmeut by consent for amount und costs, 29a. , • . . .■ ;: