MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Monday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume II, Issue 345, 20 December 1864, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Monday.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., K.M.) DRUNKEN'XESK. Bernard Ferncy ancl John Davison, charged 'with tliis offence, were treated in the usual manner. ASSAULT. James Eran, charied with, assaulting Richard Walker at Mntakacii. was remanded until to-morrow in order to procure furl her evidence. DISOBEDrEXCS! OF ORDERS. Edward Hogan, charged by Captain 1 0 ugh ton frith his offence, was remanded until to-morrow. THE ROBBERY AT 3IE. ETO'S. Richard Dumfries stood clinrged with having committed a robbery at Mr. King's ho.use, Kanmgahaperoad. The accused wits remanded until to morrow. STEALING A WATCH AND CHAIN. John Leonard was brought up charged wth stealing a watch and chain from the waistcoat poc efc of James Nicholas, at the Odd Fellows' Arms Ho el* Chancery-street, ou Saturday last. Remanded until to-morrow. CIVIL CASES. IIARSIT V. ABRAH.VMSON". Claim £G, for four ■vYeelis' rent of liouso in Victoria street,

Defendant did not appear, and judgment for plaintiff. HAIUGEY v. BAINBEtDOE. Claim £9 Ps. 6d., damageß alleged to hjivo bcon sustained by plaintiff in consequence oftlie defendant carting bricks to a certain place contrary to the instructions of the plaintiff. Mr. Wynn appeared for plaintiff, f-nd Mir. Bovo-l-idgo for defendant. . ... Plaintiff deposed: I am a bricklayer, resting in Albert-street. The defendant is a carter. In November last I employed defendant to cart bricks for me at 245. per 1000. Ho carted bricks from 23rdto to 27tli November on my account. I instructed defendant to cart some bricks to Newton, instead of •which he removed them to BarracK-strecfc. My agreement with defendant "Was that lio was to cart bricks at 24s per 1000 from the liUnatio Asylum to any placo I desired. 11l consequence of tho bricks having been removed to a wrong place, I was compelled to pay another carter £1 for carting them back again to Newton. Shortly afterwards I had to re-cart 3000 to another placo through a nnstako ot defendant's. I also claim damages for the loss of ISOO bricks, through the carelessness of tho dofendant, ■whereby the bricks are now lying on the ground perfectly useless. i_.li.-it By Sir- Beveridge : I purchased tlio best bricks 1 could procure, from Mr. Thomas. I do not know if thev had been rejected previously. The bricks cost mo*£3 2s Gd at the kiln, and I paid 20s for cartage per 1000. Philip Cooper, sworn, stated: I am a builder. The last witness took the contract to build two chimneys for mo. When the bricks arrived they were capsised out of the dray, and the consequence was that a considerable number were broken. By Mr. Beveridge : I cannot 6ay liow many bricks were broken. Many of the bricks wero unfit for use after being capsized. Bobert Williamson deposed he had been employed by the last witness in November last in building a house. Ho had seen three loads upset on tho ground., smd many of the bricks broken. By Mr. Beveridge: The bricks were broken in consequence of the cart being capsized. I will not swear how many bricks were broken.

Bainbridge deposed: I entered into an agreement with defendant to cart bricks at 245. per 1000 to Newton. The bricks were damaged from the Asylum. The plaintiff told mo not to tell anybody where I got them, as they wero damaged. About one-third were broken before they were lifted into the cart. I never received any instructions from the plaintiff to stop carting the bricks. By Mr. Wynn : Some of the bricks were carted to Barrack-street. I do not know if this was at the plaintiff's request. No objection was made until I applied for my account. Tho bricks would hardly bare handling. James Grey deposed he was a carter in the employ of the defendant. He had carted some bricks in November last. Nearly half wero broken in the stack. AVe had used every care in delivering the "bricks.

Jacob Thomas, carter to defendant, corroborated the evidence of the last witness as to the quality and mode of delivering the bricks. ,Tohn Thomas deposed he had sold a quantity of bricks to plaintiff. The bricks were ordinary ones, and had been condemned as unfit for use at the lunatic Asylum. lie had sold the bricks for £3 2s. 6d. If they had been good ones, they would have been worth -€-t per 1000. By Mr. Wynn: I do not consider it would have l)een fair usage to upset the bricks on the ground. The Bcnch said the evidence was extremely conflicting, hut the fact of upsetting the bricks had been clearly proved to the satisfaction of the Court, and as such amofe was highly improper, judgment would be given for the plaintiff for the sum of £2 10s. TOKRESTER V. MAicorMU. Claim £3, balance of passage money. Mr. Brookfield appeared for the defendant, and complained of the particulars of claim. The defendant slated that the amount had been owing for nearly six years. Adjourned by consent until next Thursday. LAMB V. STEPItENSONClaim £4 35., for grazing defendant's horse, and damages sustained. Mr. Beveridge appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wynn for the defendant. Plaintiff deposed: The defendant's horse has been in the habit of straying into my paddock and eating my grass. I gave notice to the defendant. I sent some letters to the defendant on the subject, and received the one produced in reply. (The letters were to the effect that the plaintiff intended to charge £1 3s for the grazing of the defendant's horse, and the defendant, in reply, denied all liability.) I had a conversation with defendant subsequent to receiving these letters on the subject. Mr. Stephenson then objected to my charge, and stated that he could get good grazing for 2s. 6d. per week at Howick. I replied that I should charge Is per day, and the horse having been in my paddock for 73 days, I charge £3 13s. I consider the grass was worth the same to me. The horse also broke a bridge, and did other damage to the extent of 10s. By Mr. Wynn : Mrs. Lamb made an agreement with defendant to charge Is per day for grazing. Mrs. Lamb deposed: I had a conversation with the defendant about the beginning of Augußt, about his hoise. I then, told him that our charge would bo Is per day for grazing. The defendant replied that he could get grazing at Howick for 2s. 6d. per week.

Samuel Stephenson, deposed: I reside at the Eiverhead hotel, at the Waitemata. I recollect a conversation that I had with Mrs. Lamb about my horse. She never mentioned anything about Is per day, and I made no agreement to pay her anything, but told her I was very sorry my horso trespassed, and that she had better get the paddock fenced. I could almost count the blades of grass in the paddock at the time. Bv Mr. Beveridge: I cennot say whether my horse was in plaintiff's paddock at the time I had the conversation with Mrs. Lamb. I told Mrs. Lamb I would sooner give a pound or two than be bothered with a lot of messages. By the Court: I turn the horse into the ti-tree when I do not require it. The Bench stated that there was no doubt that the defendant had received notice that he would be charged Is per day from the date of the notico which amounted to 49 days. The Court would therefore give judgment for plaintiff, for £2 9a. SMITH V. 11TTBT. Claim of £20 10s., balance of account due and owing. Mr. Brookfield for the plaintiff, and Mr. "Wynn for defendant. "VVm. Smith deposed: In the month of October last I made and furnished 17 windows for the defendant'at £3 10s. each, according to verbal agreement, amounting to £59 10s. I have received £20 on account. The charges are fair and reasonable, und the amount (£39 10s) is still due and owing.

By Mr. "Wynn : I have made a contract with the defendant for the removal of the Old Exchange Hotel, Onoliunga. The windows for which I now claim have no rinrt in the contract.

Mr. Wynn lw>re put in the contract as evidence. The Clerk read the contract which was to the effect that all extras were to be paid at the conclusion of the contract by certain ratios, and if any dispute arose should be referred to arbitration.

Mr. "Wynn contended that, in accordance with the contract made between the plaintiff and defendant, this action would not hold.

Mr. Brookfield contended that the claim of the plaintiff was outside the contract. Plaintiff's examination resumed: The defendant agreed to pay for the windows as soon as they were completed.

"Wm. Satterley stated : I remember hearing a conversation between the plaintiff and defendant about some sashes at Onehunga. Mr. Burt said to the plaintiff, "as soon as the windows are done you will get your money." The Kesident Magistrate said that the only point was the question of the contract as to the time of payment. Wm. Burt deposed: I entered into a contract with the plaintiff to do certain work. There was a clause in the agreement to the effect that any disputes should be referred to arbitration. I made no stipulation lis to the time of payment for the windows. The plaintiff has drawn all the instalments, and has now thrown up the contract. By Mr. Brookfield : I believe it will take £60 to £70 to finish the contract. The Court reserved judgment until next Thursday. xowe v. EOBJNSON - . Claim £20, for damages sustained by plaintiff in consequence of alleged breach of agreement on the part of the defefithmt. Mr. MerrimaJft tot and Mr/ J. B. Russell for defendunfc. ffi

Vm. TRobinson deposed : 1 reecivoa the nohco produced, which bears my signature at tho back. wn the sth November I entered into an agrcomenti ith tho plaintiff to let him a houso, and accompanied him to tho house for tho purposo of tho plaintiff looking at it. Tho plaintiff said ho would tnko tho houso and entor it on tho Friday morning. Ho novor camo to tho specified time, and I let tho houso to another P By Mr. Kusbcll: Tho plaintiff's rent was to have commenced from tho Friday. Charles Lowo stated : I entered into an agroomont with the dofendant to rent a houso from him; the dato of possession to commenco from Friday. J agreed to pay 10s. per week rent. I arrived with my furniture at about a quarter past 11 in the morning. I had to pay a pound per week for a houso. My wife was ill, and wo had to remain in the streets for n day. I consider I have sustained damages to tho amount of £10. Tho Court ordered a nonsuit to ho recorded, oach party to pay their own costs.

QVINN V. ITAItIUS. Claim £15 95., bnlanco of account due for quarrying stono. Mr. Brookfield for plaintiff, and Mr. Weston for defendent. Thomas Quinn deposed: I was engaged by dofendent to quarry some stone. I was working from tho 17th of .August to tho 2nd of November, and quarried 200 loads. T have received part payment and claim now lor 118 loads that I measured and left in tho quarry. I now claim £15 195., being the balance duo to mc. By Mr." Weston : I made no agreement to assist in tlio cartine. Patrick Welch gave cvidenco corroborating the testimonv of tho plaintiff. Defendant sworn, stated : I agreed with the plaintiff to quarry and load stone at. five shillings per load. The plaintiff quarried at a quantity of stone ana put it in a heap, and afterwards paid ho did not wish to do any more "worlw I could not pet idea. 01 the measureir rut. because Hie Mono was not properlv stacked. I consequently had the stone estimated and tho value put mi on it was the amount I had paid £16. T had paid £2 4s. into Court in full satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim against me. By Mr. Brookfield : No 0110 was present when the agreement was made. George Manly : 1 am a quarryman. I measured a heap of stones by desiro of It measured twenty six feet square by two feet six deep on an T Brookfield: I saw plaintiff stacking tho heap about a week before T measured it. David Wilson, deposed : lam a mason mid bricklaver. I measured a heap of stones at Cabbage Tree Swamp, that had been quarried by the plaintiff. The heap measured twentv-pix feet square and contained under seventy load of etone. Py Mr. Brookfield: I have not seen the stack since part of tho stone was removed. The Court gave judgment for tho plaintiff for the sum of £4 4s. This concluded the business of the day.