Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Wedmmdat, Septbmiubr 4. (Before H, Brabant Esq. 8.M.) v Henry MoGuinnsss v. Walter Alzdorf— Claim £1 14 b. Judgment for amount and ..* costs, Ss. • „ t1 ,'.' t C. V. Furrie v. E. D. Pinkham-r-Claia» £3 3s 6d ; for goods supplied. Mr Matthewi for plaintiff. Judgment for amount and • costs, 6s. •■ • • -. ■ .;• :■■■,,...: .^ ; ,. : , , ,...., . ' .' C' Symons v. Jonei &. Bogerß— Claim Y,l £40 6s Bd. ■■ ■' ...... 'Z Mr Matthews for plaintiff. - ■ ■■ .1 Mr Hankins for: defendants applied for an adjournment for the amendment ol particulars of account. The R.M. ruled that the plaintiff most supply a full bill of particulars. Adjourned to next Court day. George Rogers v. De Ridder, Kraise & Co. Case struck out on application of defendant. J. E. Nathan & Co v. Henry Blake — Claim £5 3s 9d, Judgment summons. :' „ , Mi' Hankins appeared for judgment / creditor. H. Blake, being sworn, said that for the whole twelvemonths he had no money to pay with. Was married; had no children f except who are married. He last worked v last week and earned ss. He could not. work when he was not able. He. would , make no offer. He had paid no one fcfr the ' past 15 months, He would do what" he could for Messrs Nathan <fc Co to work out ■. the account. 1 The Court could make no order. ~ J. W. Stewart v. Danes and Stuart— I Claim £74 18g Bd. . Mr Cook appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hankins for defendants. . . . ' Mr Cook explained that the claim, was ia : connection with a survey contract. The . defendants had put in a set off amounting ' to £39 13b 3d. Some of the a'aujuntt'are not Bet off s, but really claim for, special: damages. In beginning of 1887 the defendants agreed to a contract for survey j}t ' Heatherlea at the rate of Is 4d an acre. ' , Mr Davies accepted contract verbally, bat - put off survey and agreed ior a preliminary sketch.; The plaintiff was- afterwards instructed to prepare the proper survey under ' the Land Transfer Act. It had been agrfei'd- J> that defendants were to supply the data fo? ■'■ ' the survey, whioh they.. did.; but the data supplied was in fact wrong, aqdpraoti^ cally Mr Stewart's survey had been adoptedV J. W; Stewart, being gworn, said he f '4i& '' ■: an authorised surveyor. The contract wmmV made. at Mr Davies' request I put ft); >*]*„ , offer in writing, it read, I. hereby offer to . lay off your 2000 acres at Heathwleam 100 acre sections. The arrangemfent vriijh "t&i ;! Davies was that he was to supply tav'tritli correct data, and that the lines rgojid :fhc block were cut. He accepted my offer. After a delay of two months he »ik«d me. to make a rough plan for sale. He sent a rough plan the same as ihown^". H^'idiS tlie' ■'. I rough plan and completed it m August and " gent it to Mr Stuart in Wellington (J»tt«r read), The sate was made oa that plai». , / The defendants knew it wa« ,» rough plan. That was the £80 worth of work. The extras Were entered into. After the rough plan he was instructed to J«ak«; Land Transfer plan. It took aboßt ,s|x „ weeks. Had. a oonsidembJU amount i-.,pC .. extra work ia cutting lin«, which understood Wfpft out. On« Unt WMI.;^ miles through &t bush. Th« plan w«t ip " about 30th January. On Snd Febraanr heard from Survey Office, also frop* Mfi .- > Stuart (letter from Stuart nwi) ri ,a^f^k'^. plans were wrong. Th»plan War rftti^ift^V, from the Governm«nt a^d.^«|p«rtf^rij|^ ; received. The measawm«p^oi^ ajf.pW , did not correspond wife th» plwßT^mpM; . ' by the Government. H»p had abf pjwjt ttf . points in diiputt thrte timmi'tttooßi.tysl . were correct, and. thu rsfussd. to aU«|« There was a long ttßtroondtfUM with tfa* „; Survey Department* and cJwf auistani ife,:. , the office agreed to adjuat the. m—w>h., ments so as to make the plans flt> Beabu maintained that hU aurvey w»«. eorxeet (memo readlrom Surrey OjffijN^ Thfetifr gestionunade. by Survey JDepArteie^^waev •to di«tnbute the errors over whole wetw pn 27th April, 1888, Mr Davteß wrote ■toting that he should hold the plaintiff aikwerable for all losses in connection with • tht survey (letter read). Be reeciVeHfe ;•' flvaftpajrmettV *M, c* eowpUtioß «t Wto

{ton, about July, 1887. The next payment was in January, 1888, £30; the next on; Aur. 20, jtt&fc: The account was rendered „ on 20th Attjjojt, bat Mr Davies returned it, Did notKinow ..'.why. On the OtH' Oot; sent Better to Mr. $svjUb, *ad re', eeived answer I; ptt 13th Qo^r, in which Daviea off«rt&tj» paydßlO aii;d »° more till he had nekfid fronvjat .sftofcrt. Another letter dated Silt Attg &i>wi Mir bevies was read ,y His «laihtwfts for' shraying 2000 acres * at Is M y M% had aurveyed 2OBfO' acres. Next for fraoing of ; railway llne» which should have Wn fdtind* -He*t f or ; tracing 'or Uuctloiieerß, being an extra on tho rough plant NelV for scheme of Jaylug out town.fi.Hvu and tractngl Extra Work incurred inifioorrect plan being furnished. Many 9itfcs lines . Vfere checked 3 tinies. Next Sox.<nitttnft $$ miies of bush line. Mr Da vies had ttaid this was cut. Next for altering ptan making; two sections BDoaHer. i Mr levies had stated he had been informed I it was not necessary to cut section lines right through, and '£10 would be small reduction if it was not required to be dohe» As a fact jiffies were cut 9 chains: into bush instead of one chain as Had' been Agreed to in contract* By Mr Hankins— Atadorf really did the i work on the ground, and he (plaintiff) had signed the plans. ,, Was not, aware that transfer office had withdrawn Alzdorf's license. Beeifm Fdxton 5 years. This was>the Butvejr he had mado in New Zeitand. TBepegs "were put in at each cornier. Tracing would mean true copy of tf; plan. Be would not sam>ly marginal references* ilieplan would be a tracing «f the sarvey tatcii' off my own draft. It showed all thd traverse lines on original lalftn, or it should. Believed it showe«l all %he datev bavies wrote 28th January 1889 ■asking fov correot tracing (read 12). The tracii^wfts -made about 3 months after w!»n wae made<26th October 1888). Mr A\zdorf was present in Alzdorfs office when Mr Dories agreed to supply data for malting the plan. He could not say what time during the day. He took Mr Davies word about the block and did not go to see. Have rendered an account twice. In first it Was mentioned extras would be adjusted. 'Witness handed in copy of account. Letter from witness to defendant read (L4)itt which it was mentioned that the extras would not have been charged if account had been paid earlier. The rough {ilani would show the sections and the areas, it was 'not in the contract for the survey.- Letter to ;Mr Stuart re covering plan,. aßked for extras #5. The Land Transfer plan was. put in by Mr Davies an the •correct boundaries. The nearest trig station was about a mile. The survey regulations make it necessary to make surveys in accordance with them. Have five inch theodolite, five chain wire not steel wire> Have a dumpy level, aneroid. Only used, what -war necessary. Lines were cut four feet wide. The authorities did not complain about lines not being pegged as by regulations. The land was to be laid off in 100 acre sections. Alzdorf made plan, for preliminary survey. • By Mr Cook — The plan shows that sec- >*•- tions are not all 100 acres. It means so raanYfloctionji of 100 acres each as to the whole area, He first rendered the account' in August 1888. The extras had not then beeq4ibjpu,ted, The mistake in the plan arose, from Government mistakes. The bounflariei and bearings of the block were incorreot. The plan of certificate of title had bjsen surveyed by a private surveyor. The traoing was not sent to Mr Davies before as he had said he would not take it till He had paid: f ok the survey. By the . court — Mr. Davies took an ac- ' count to my home and left it there. It fc. wo* the linkage chain that was used. T Walter Alzdorf being sworn said— He had been**' 'licensed sn'rveyor*. Been with Mr fiteHftrt iibout three years. The contract was made about 2£ years ago in his office Davies, Stewart and himself were present. The arrangement made for rough survey was for :£3O. r When pegs were in, he was . instructed to make a tracing. The arrangement for Land Transfer plan .was to effect avstated by the plaintiff. Mr Davies was to supply a copy, of the plan of the C of Title, and to supply plans of the railways and roads. Mr Davies said that the whole of the boundary lines were cut. f The vpugb survey would then have been aompleifd. Did the Land Transfer plans, iyfere sent in 28th February, and retarded* immediately. The plan did not agree with plan on C of Title, in measurements. Remembered no meeting between Davies and plaintiff. \ By,,Mr,Hankinß— Knew Smith, cut a line for him., He did all the work on the line. Used a chain. The line waß cut for four feet wide. Mr Stewart. was on the ground 8 time's. By Mt Cook—The C of Title plan is produced. The plan on title is incorreot as shown by actual errors admitted by the office. The traoing is correct, the original figures had not been altered on the boundary in one instance. Was not aware traoing had been sent back for alteration. The case lor the defence was based on the non fulfillment of the contract, and Mr Hankim asked for a nonsuit. The R.M. ruled against the nonsuit. The evidence taken in Wellington was read. J. . W. flDavies deposed he was in Tranai«r office. . The plan signed by J. W. Stewarti was lodged on 30th January and accepted in May. The plans were referred 0- back f- times. He attributed the errors ■ to want of colonial experience on the part of M* J. W.- Stewart, and also errors in measurements. He was not prepared to Wfftp that the boundaries on Government plans were correot or otherwise. H« knew there was a . conflict between Mr Stewart and the Government. He knew some dis--gtftoot's.w'wre. wrong, enlargements are not neceisary for sale plans. The planß have been ittnally rectified without expense to Mr Davtes. ' J. W. Marohant deposed that he was' chief surveyor. The plan was accepted on Bth drdtti'Miy, the delay was caused by error*.'^nd were due to fault of surveyor, Mr Bttwart reported difflcalty in making dißton&a agrM i^t, Government maps. If s<<ireyor took dr^inal data which was ' wronl^it mrald throw all his work out. He WM nq« prepared to say whether the origM*ttk was not wrong. He believed SCr Stwrart might b»>» »i|A trouble if he a temi*M»work would «$t «pme in. The - miMakia w»re not WWit an experienced sur^{K)»W4»^d<hav« made< . John Anderson clerk to- Messri Bell, QmUpmmL Izard said that there was delay ti» Bqmriog; testae to. purchaser* on AT¥TSWatt aafd he wat a partner with Mr Davies. Tbetfrwas a great delay in preparation 'of j&am* Several purohasfrs were ready to i«p befor* the plan was mtdy. Buyf imH^nat told at sale that a oorreot plan urt lie. , mad* , hef ore titles could 09- given^l vTa*. ■''. «.' >■. V u '•' ••• jwflMlfohwt^^pbdmlßNa.Mamh 188? in of&w, than plaintiff wrote. # It was potted to him. •H» had pro* mised to give copy of pin op hit 0 of Tf<J« showing boundaries of, a block, •nd ~W BaoT .jronjftfd -..to pay , fqr ibi tricing of railway .line. He «t»ar•ntM'flto dAta. Beceiv*d letter from Mr Stew«rfn)eriilbnl6g <heiM«pUnoa of a rj». atte^nof^WWHtitrMtpriw, Hrn«W

[I'toTd'pTaifitiff'thebaok line "was- eut,..jiJß-.fcft l L ' knew jppsitively it was not ; plaintiff sent [j tracing 'to Wellington, and he paid 4*35, .which was to .'cover expenses up ,to date.; 1 never agi'eed td!>pay r ,for '.'any extra work; • hßdrftßked for .one seJDtiori to be divided ;■• in conversation he had asked plaintiff for *• Boheme. of laying put «. .township; he never ■ expected a ehavge, and would not have had it dbne^had he expected to have to pay for it i the ill'it account rendered, in May 18, ■ 1888,. had .nothing for extras excenfthe 15s ;• the account foi-.extras he received in August, and plaintiff said he had only made it to, fdgliten Stuart with ; the next .account, on . 12th September, had no items for extras; he had offered to give the plaintiff £10, to be a settlement in full. A cheque dated 16tk Oct. was handed in as evidonce of the tender. On receipt of tracing from Wellington he sent same to plaintiff, and received it without advice from him, and not altered as it should have been. By Mr Cook— He did not tell Mr Stewart what wad the Matter with the plan; the tracing was wanted, but he could not say tttl he wanted it for ; could cot say what he wanted to pay Mr Stewart £10 for in October; plan was passed on 10th May, and the offer to pay £10 was made in October, after the losses stated to have been incurred were known. He stated that he had either given or left the account with Mr Stewart; he could not say if Mr Stewart knew he had done so ; the account rendered in May by Mr Stewart had a notice that the account was notified it was subject to extras ; had undertaken to lind the plan of the road ; had instructed Mr Stewart to commence survey in November, three weeks after sale ; the plans were finished on oth May ; the property was surveyed by Mv Carkeek for the Maories; knew conditions of sale; people in this district knew the pi n was only a rough one, purchasers outside did not know sale plan was only a rough one. The case was left without address to his Worship. Judgment will be given at next fortnightly sitting of the Court at Palmerston.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH18890906.2.11

Bibliographic details

Manawatu Herald, 6 September 1889, Page 2

Word Count
2,322

Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton. Manawatu Herald, 6 September 1889, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton. Manawatu Herald, 6 September 1889, Page 2