MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIV, Issue 1188, 10 December 1924, Page 10

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

DISPUTE OVER HOUS-E WIRING. An action,of interest to householders concerned in electric light installations came before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The case was one in which S. Kirkland, of Palmerston North, electrician, proceeded against W. E. Tyree, of Palmerston North,- police constable, claiming £3 12s, the balance allegedly due to plaintiff on an account for electrical wiring and fitting done to defendant’s house. Mr Hurley appeared for plaintiff and Mr Cooper for defendant. Prior to the commencement of the hearing it was explained to the Court that tiie dispute was based on the point as to whether plaintiff’s contract to wire the house included the price of a switchboard and mains, plaintiff contending that it did not. In the course of his evidence plaintiff said that 35s 6d per point was the standard price without switchboard and mains. Mr Cooper proceeded to question witness at length as to what the “standard price” constituted. when His

AVorsliip interjected to witness: “Don’t dodge. If you want me to believe your evidence answer questions as near as you can.” AVitncss: The 35s 6d was my price without mains and switchboard—my standard price. His AVorsliip: AA'ell, your price was not the standard price. Air Cooper: Do you think that £2 5s 6d per point for installations complete with mains and switchboards at the end of 1923 would be exorbitant? AVitncss: No. That would ho a. fair thing at that time. AVitncss added that in October, 1923, he did not quote for installations eomplefe with mains and switchboard. A number of witnesses were called by both plaintiff and defendant. Giving judgment, His Worship said that the disputed contract was drawn , up by plaintiff, and if it was open to j any misconstruction it must be eonIstrued against him. In other contracts I plaintiff had expressly stipulated whej ther his price included a switchboard and mains to connect up with the borough street lines. That had not been \ done in this instance. Lighting points | were no good without mains and a ; switchboard, and plaintiff had not | stipulated that the latter would cost extra. If he had had that idea in his mind he would have made- it tho subject of a special clause, as he had done in other contracts. It was reasonable to expect that a contract to put in a given number of points, unless otherwise specified, meant that such would be completely connected up with the borough mains. Plaintiff could not say that points complete in 1923 meant one thing and now meant another. His AVorsliip thought that plaintiff should have completed tho job with switchhoard and mains ready for use. Judgment was given for plaintiff for a prior amount paid into Court and for defendant on the balance outstanding, with costs and witnesses’ expenses also to defendant.

DISPUTE AVITH BUILDER. Edward Ivavanagb, of Palmerston North, builder, proceeded against Henry Knight, of McKenzie Soldiers’ Settlement, Kairanga, farmer, claiming £7 16s, the balance alleged to be owing on an account for work done and materials supplied in effecting repairs, alterations and additions to a dwellinghouse and shifting two wliares. Air Hurley appeared for plaintiff and Air Grant for defendant. After hearing evidence His AVorsliip gave judgment for plaintiff for £7, UNUSUAL RENT CLAIAI. An unusual claim for a refund of rent came before the court when H. Berquist, of Palmerston North, labourer, proceeded against R. J. AVilliams, of 5, Ada street, Palmerston North, claiming £9 15s refund of rent which plaintiff alleged he had paid to defendant on an unfair basis.

Mr Ongley appeared for plaintiff and Mr Cooper for defendant. Tlie statement of claim set out that plaintiff was sub-tenant of defendant of a house in Broad street from November 14, 1923, to October 10, 1924, and during that time plaintiff paid defendant rent at 25s per week. The said dwelling was rented by defendant from the owners at 17s 6d per week, from April 5, 1920, to October 10, 1920, that being the standard rent for such a house. During the six mouths’ period ended on October 10, 1924, plaintiff had paid £9 15s in excess of the standard rent payable by him under the War Legislation Amendment Act and the Housing Amendment Act, wherefor plaintiff sought judgment for such sum. Mr Ongley said that Mrs Williams had told the owners of the house that she was going away for a time for health reasons and sought permission to sub-let ' the dwelling. This was given, and defendant sub-let it for 25s a week, the rent being paid to her, though she herself was still paying only 17s (id per week for .the house to the owners. Further, she had not gone away but had moved into a house in Ada street.

For the defence Mr Cooper said that, when defendant vacated the house to plaintiff, certain articles of furniture were left in the house for plaintiff’s use and the rent was made 25s instead of 17s 6d in recognition of it being let furnished.

Plaintiff stated in evidence that only a “few sticks” of worm-eaten furniture, which were of little or no use to him, were left in the house. Further, nothing had been said about the extra 7s 6d being on account of the furniture left in the house.

Defendant and his wife gave evidence that they had let the house for 25s per week as a furnished dwelling. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £5, stating that the house was not worth more than £1 per week in its present condition.