LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4398, 17 December 1875, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

DISTRICT COURT.— Thursday. [Before His Honor F. D. Fenton, District Judge.] An adjourned sitting of the Court was held this morning :— Murphy v. O'Neill.—Claim £22 18s Gd. Mr. Brookfield for the plaintiff, Mr. Rees for the defendant. This case was heard last Court-day. The claim was for arrears of an annuity settled by a deed under whicli the defendant purchased certain mortgaged property belonging to the plaintiff (buying out the mortgagee), the plaintiff, according to his statement, being appointed agent to receive the rents, and authorised to make repairs for which the defendant became liable. The defendant said he bought the property to prevent foreclosure and saleby themortgagee, allowing the plaintiff to receive the rents as payments of the annuity, and giving a lifelease of one of the cottages to the plaintiff. Defendant, however, denied the agency set up by the plaintiff, and the authority alleged by the plaintiff to make repairs for which he (defendant) was to be responsible. He deposed that he interfered between the plaintiff and the mortgagee solely to save the property to the plaintiff. His Honor, upon the conclusion of the evidence, reserved judgment, and now said that there were several points in the case upon which he would like to have the benefat of argument by counsel before giving hia decision. Tho evidence was very conflicting, and a great deal of it very obscure. He would adjourn the case to Tuesday next. —Adjourned accordingly. Fargie v. Barnett and Levy.—Claim, £100. Mr. Rees for plaintiff; Mr. Meyer for defendants. This was an action to recover for work and labour done " extra" , upon a building contract. The defence was j that the work was not extra; that the defendants did not request the plaintiff to do the work, nor did the plaintiff supply necessary materials. The facts of the case were the. foHowing ; —lt appeared that there was a contract between the parties for the erection of two buildings, and the manner j in which the buildings were to be paid for was at the rate of £20 a-week, until the full amount (£380) should be paid. It appeared also, that during the progress of the work an alteration was made, which added 13 feet to the length of the buildings, and this was the work charged for as "extra." The plaintiff, in his evidence, having stated that there was a contract in writing, the defendants* counsel demanded that the contract should be produced. Mr. Rees said no notice to produce had been served and he was not bound to produce. Mr. Meyer argued that the contract, when in writing,, was the only evidence of what extras were done, and if it were hot produced, then the plaintiff's case must faiL Mr. Kees contended that this work claimed tor was altogether new work, and not ny TTTu a ?^V roylded < for the contract. What he understood to be " extras" were extensions or alterations in the actual building specified in the contract. H*re the whole , work done was independent of the buildings. His Honor pointed out that the word ' extra' was mentioned in the bill of particulars. It was necessary to have the •oatfMt,. ui ardw ta tee nht,i naa '' axtra," i

that is to say, not included ,in the contract. The writing was accordingly produced; but it appeared, upon examination,' that the stamp was improperly obliterated, and a contention ensued as te whether the document could be admitted as evidence. The result was that, by consent, the further hearing was adjourned.to next Court-day.