MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 107, 2 April 1930, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., presided over yesterday’s sitting of the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court, when civil business was dealt with. • Judgment for plaintiff was given in the following undefended cases:—F. J. Curtis (Mr Petersen) v. E. Buckeridge, £3 13s 3d, costs £1 10s 6d; T. Young (Mr Ongley) v. J. Donkin, £l4, costs £3 ss; Dr. Boyd (Mr Cooper) v. J. Lahood, £1 Is, costs 11s; Hodder and Tolley, Ltd. (Mr Cooper) v. D. Laing, £37 Os 9d, costs £4 16s; H. R Thorbum (Mr Meatyard) v. W. H. Conder, £6, costs £1 10s 6d; Burton Brewery Co., Ltd. (Mr Laurenson) v. C. W. Borlase, 10s, costs 14s; H. Rennett (Mr Yortt) v. C. Weedon, £3 9s 2d, costs £1 6s 6d; Bamao Bros. (Mr Cooper) v. N. Qgulelios, £25 8s Ba, costs £4 Is 6d; Alice Larsen (Mr Ongley) v. G. Wood, £l3 15e, costs £2 14s; C. M. Ross Coy., Ltd.' (Mr Laurenson) v. L. McDonald and Co., £5 15s 4d, costs £2 6s 6d. W. Paddy was ordered to pay to A. E. Madgwick (Mr Merton) £2 4s 6d, in default three days’ imprisonment. DEFENDED ACTION. A. J. Shailer and Son, of Palmerston North, nurserymen (Mr Ongley) proceeded against W. B. Bodell, of Wood Street, builder (Mr Grant) for the recovery of £9 12s for shrubs supplied to defendant in December, 1928. Mr Shailer stated that he had been commissioned by defendant 'to lay down a lawn on the latter’s property and prepare and' plant the garden. This had been done, though the first strike of grass had been killed by frost. It haa.been impossible to give any guarantee! of the lawn coming up free from weede._ Defendant had tola him of the position, and some months later he removed the weeds from the surface and resowed the lawn. For this a charge of £3 had been made, the amount including labour and seed. Portion of the account' had been paid, the claim being for the balance. Evidence given by defendant was to,, the effect that plaintiff had' guaranteed to make a first-class job of the lawn. No price was agreed upon for the work, and there was no dispute regarding this point. The position was that a quantity of Hokowhitu soil had been deposited on the top of the lawn and a weed had been imported which had taken charge of the lawn. There was no i[{ Sß at all after the first sowing, and the lawn was very little better now ; . He had told plaintiff that he would not pay for the work until it was_dpne properly. Giving his decision, His Worship said that the case was not one for refusal of all remuneration to the plaintiff. It was not his fault that the lawn grass had not come up. He could not, however, claim the £3 for doing the job a second time, and as the lawn would probably have to be done again a similar sum would be deducted from the claim. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £3 12s and £2 9s costs.