RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1124, 21 June 1867, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THURSDAY. (Before Thos. Beckham, Esq., R.M.) PARKER V. IURCHAHD. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff in. tliis case for the sum of ;Cls. JUDGMENTS CONFESSED. In the following eases defendants confessed judgment:—Cameron v. Simpson, £9 ; Webster v. AIpo; Millicham v. Ferguson, ,C 1(3 14s. d-d. ; I'orler v. Ferguson, £'l lis ; Smith v. same, .Gls 19s. 7d.; Tindlo v. same ,G9 14s.'

JUDGMENTS roil PLAINTIFFS. _ . His Worship gave judgment for plaintiffs in the following eases : —-McCaul and l\igg v. J. Anderson, ,G3 7s ; Eaton & Pewolf v. W. Good, ,C'S 2s 7d; Quick & Co. v. Stevens, £1; Thompson v. J. Francis, £'1 l-l-<; lleveridge v. Gardiner, .CI 55.; Moore v. Martin, £S 10s ; Alpe v. Rodgers, £11 lis Gd. xoxsriTS. Long v. Dornwell, £1 los.; Dudley v. McCaul, and Rigg, £C lGs. 6d. MCCAUL V. XESBITT. Claim £o. i Mr. Magdonald for the plaintiff; Mr. Hill, junr., for the defendant. The defendant in this instance deposed that the amount had been settled, but being unable to prove the fact, judgment was given for the plaintiff. QUICK AND CO. V. PLACE. Claim £3 Gs Gd for coach hire. Mr. Wynn appeared for the plaintiff. In this case the claim was for coach fare, the

defence being that on two occasions for which defendant was charged for coach hire, he had travelled on the plaintiff's service and free of charge. Defendant admitted £2, but denied being indebted for the remainder of the sum claimed. Judgment for plaintiff, the amount to be paid into Court pending the result of a contra action. GRAHAM V. DONNISON. Claim £11 os for work done. Mr. Wynn appeared for the plaintiff,; Mr. Brookfield for the defendant. In this ease the plaintiff's claim was for cutting 150 tons firewood at Is Gd per ton for the defendant ; the defence being that the plaintiff had cut the wood under an agreement to receive half what it would realize when disposed of, and that the wood was still unsold. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff. BISE V. PAUL. Claim £2 2s Gd. Mr. J. Russell appeared for the defendant, and confessed judgment for £1 2s Gd. which was ' accepted by the plaintiff as payment in full. 1 CORXHS AND Dimv V. WHITLOCK. Claim £10 9s for work done. Mr. Hesketh for the plaintiff; Mr. Brookfield for the defendant. The plaintiff' Cornes in his evidence, statedthat he had agreed to perform certain works on the new salt water batlis for the defendant, for the sum of £36 ; £22 19s of which he had received. Plaintiff was to make bath rooms, coffee rooms, waiting rooms, doors, passages, &e., and the contract was to be completed within three months. There was an agreement made between the parties, was not signed. There wero original specifications but with these he had nothing to do, but simply , with those as agreed upon between hiuisclfand the defendant. He had done certain extra openings for which he charged £3 Ss, and the total balance now due was £1G 9s. In applying to the defendant for payment, the latter said he must wait until the whele of the job was completed,. The defendaut, however, on that occasion, admitted his indebtedness to the plaintiff to the extent of £13 Is, and said he would consider about the extras. Subsequently ihc defendant had written to iiirn complaining that the contract had not been completed, and that if the plaintiff did not finish defendant would do so at his risk. In cross-examination plaintiff admitted that a portion of the works were not completed. The agreement was in the possession of flic defendant, and it referred to the original architectural plans and specifications. Had to look at the original plans and specifications for guidance. On receiving the notice to complete the contract according to agreement had done so. lie-examined: Plaintiff said the original plans had only been shown to him once before entering on the contract when lie was able to complete the contract, with the alterations. When lie said a portion of the work had not been

completed lie rcferivd to one door. The plaintiff 1 Drew gave corroborative testimony. The Court adjourned at 1.15 p.m. On the Court re-assembling,

Mr. I'rooltfield called the defendant, who produced the original plan, and deposed that it was one of the original plans shown to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were to make CG openings at different prices, and an agreement was subsequently made in Alr. T. 13. Cameron's olficc by which the whole was made a lump sum of <£3(i, to be paid on completion of the work. Several portions of the work were incomplete. The dimensions of the doors and windows were obtained from lime to time at Mr. Cameron's cilice, and Mr. Cameron inspected the work during its progress. Had given notice to tho plaintiffs to complete the work and had paid them the sum of £'32 ss. on account. In cross-examination the witness admitted that one portion of his own work was not according to the specifications (plans produced). There was <12 doors in all Would swear there were that number unfinished in connection with plaintiff's works. There were 5 doors incomplete, 21 doors were pa.tly finished, only inquiring sills in the bottoms to make them complete. Kc-examincd by Mr. Brookfiald : Tlicre are GO openings altogether, of which 44 are doors and 22 windows. There are 37 doors Irang, 24 being incomplete. For the whole of the openings I was to pay according to the specification, £37. T. B. Cameron, architect, deposed to having made the plans and specifications produced, and to some of the work being incomplete. This being the whole of the evidence, His Worship said lie would give judgment nexfe Thursday. DOWNF.S V. ROWLEY. Claim £5 ss. balance of a promissory note. Mr. II esketh appeared for plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff. DOWSES V. SAME. Claim £10, money lent. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff. W. GRAHAM V. GOOD. Claim £4 7s Gd, for goods supplied. Mr. Macdonald appeared for the plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff. This concluded the business.