RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6140, 22 July 1881, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday. .. [Before E. C-Barstow, Esg., R.M.] , The regular sitting of this Court wan held yesterday for the purpose of dealing with small debt cases. : Judgment for Plaintiffs.—Alex. White v. R. Newcombe : Claim, £10, money lent: costs,. £2. 10s, T. E. Fitzgerald v. H! B. Chase: Claim, £8 19s ; costs, £1 17s. James O'Connor v. Alex. Johnson : Claim, £1 193, .use and occupation; costs, £1 2s 6d. James Finlay v. David Swanson: Claim, £5; costs, £1 2? 6d. F. M. Morley v. Dennis .Wright-: Claim, £1 4s. The debt had been paid, but no costs. Judgment was given for the costs—£l 4s 6d. . JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. William Rowbottom v. William Bradley.—Claim, £31 0s 9d. Mr. Brock appeared I for the judgment creditor. Defendant did not appear. Mrs. Rowbottom, wife of the plaintiff, deposed that after-the judgment had been obtained she applied to defendant for some money. He told her he had received. £40, but that he had given it to his wife. ' She applied to him again a fortnight ago and offered to take £10, but he said he would pay it all; that there was £150 coming to him from Mr. Jagger, but there was a difference of £8 between them. Ordered to. pay the amount and costs in a fortnight, or- in default, to be liable to three months'imprisonment. William G. Garrard v. Fredk. VinCENr.— The amount for which judgment had been obtained was £2. Defendant did not appear. The plaintiff deposed that defendant was earning £4 a week in Cambridge, working for Mr. Wiseman. An order was made for payment of the amount and 5s costs in a fortnight, or in default, to be imprisoned for 10 days. Cases Adjourned.— L. D. Nathan and Co. v. R. W. Priddle, £16; James B. Morpeth v. Joseph A. Atkins, £11 5s ; Winks and Hall v. Alfred G. Howard, £9 17s Id ; Samuel Coombes v. F. G. Mayhew, £6 3s 6d ; Joseph Warren v. John Hunter, £5 18s 6d ; J. H. Jones v. W. E. Payne, £5 9s 10d ; Sir Michael Seymour v. J. C. Seccombe. £10.

Thomas Fenton v. Geo. Wilson.—This was a claim for £12 ss. Mr. Theophilus Cooper appeared for the defendant. Tho claim was for wages and extras. The defendant was the night-soil contractor, and the plaintiff was in his employ. There was an agreement between them, which was in defendant's possession, and plaintiff had no copy ef it. Mr. Cooper pointed out that the particulars supplied to the defendant did not correspond with those supplied to the plaintiff. He also submitted that no notice to produce the agreement had been given, ana the case could go no further. Mr. S. Hesketh, as a friend of the Court, pointed out that the defendant being ignorant of the legal forms had failed to give notice to produce. The defendant had obtained an advantage over the plaintiff on the last Court day, by obtaining an adjournment against his will in order that the defendant might obtain the services of Air. Tyler. Mr. Cooper objected to Mr. Hesketh addressing the Court at all, but Mr. Hesketh insisted on his right to bring the facts before the Court. Mr. Cooper said the real reason was that Messrs. Hesketh and Richmond were now acting for the plaintiff in bringing an action for £500 damages for wrongful imprisonment. His Worship said he could not proceed with the caiie. He must nonsuit plaintiff with costs, £2 2s. Auckland Timber Company v. W. A. Probert.— Claim £45 19s Id. Mr. E. Cooper, who appeared for the defendant, took exception-to the summons as not containing sufficient particulars. The address of the defendant,..his Christian name, nor calling were not shown, and the company could only sue by attorney, which was not set forth on the summons. His Worship held that the particulars ought to bo set forth. Mr. Cooper applied for costs for the defendant's counsel's fee, £2 2s, was allowed. ,

W. E. Sainsbury v. Edmund Bell.— This was a claim for £11 2s for work done. Mr. S. Hesketh appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cooper and Mr. Thome for the defendant. Witnesses: were ordered out of Court. The plaintiff was a contractor aud had erected a house at Ngarota (Waikato) of which Mr. Bell was architect, and the present action was to recover the amount claimed for extra work which had been done at Mr. Bell's request, and which was not included in the original contract. The plaintiff deposed to the facts of the.case as stated.by his counsel, and gave evidence as to the items for which he charged. There were certain.. alterations from the original contract which were effected after he .had gone to the expense of preparing timber, &c, as originally intended, and Mr. Bell promised either to pay for it or see it paid.; He was instructed not to put it in Mr.Newland's account (the proprietor's), ! but to charge the defendant as the mistake had been, his.., Mr. Bell had kept back the certificate, but told .him if. he squared that, -little item (meaning the present account) rhe would give him a certificate.. The plaintiff was cross-examined He had. given a receipt for £100 for extras from Mr.: Newland. The account was for £261, but they compelled him to sign it. The receipt was put in evidence. The plans and specifications were also put in evidence by Mr. Cooper.:; Mn-Cooper applied to go right on with the case- without a' recess, But Mr. Heaketh ropposed; and ; the. adjournment was' taken, the plaintiff giving his promise not toj communicate with his witnesses. Walter Sainsbury.a brother of the plaintiff,' a: carpenter, who was employed on the contract in.Ngarota,- gave corroborative: evidence to some extent. Asser Wren,' a clerk in Mr.. Sainsbury/s" employ, also gave evidence, and deposed to hearing conversations between the plaintiff ; and defendant in reference to the stair. Mr. Cooper ' con*

tended that the plaintiff must .be nonsuited from his own evidence, and the contra- , dictory statements made by him, and the fact that he had charged them, in the bill to Mr.- Newland for these items, although lie denied he had done so, as well as the fact that.the liability of Mr. Bell was not at all shown. He referred to the animus shown by the plaintiff. His Worship said he should prefer to hear the evidene, and Mr. Cooper then opened the case for the defence. William McLeay deposed to plaintiff coming to a building in course of erection at Pousonby, and by false representations obtaining an inspection of plans and specifications prepared by the defendant. The plaintiff, in crossexamination, had denied this. Mr. Herapath, architect, was examined, He had examined the plans and specifications for Mr. Newland's house. They were the work of a man who knew his

business, r and were properly prepared. The account for extras placed in his hands came within the meaning of clause 4 of the specifications, and even as extras the charges were excessive. He never heard of extras being charged against the architect, always against the owner. The charge of 25 per cent, on extras was most preposterous. The account had evidently beeu made out by some person who had been in some other profession before he became a carpenter. The phraseology was that of a lawyer, and the charges were monstrous. Had the account been a-just one,- no builder would have accepted £100 as payment in full for an account of £261, but as it was he was well paid in £100. Witness would have taksn 25 per cent, off that. Witness did not know Mr. Bell intimately, and simply judged of his capabilities as an architect from the plans and specifications before him which he approved. Mr. Cooper called the defendant who deposed that he had never promised to pay the plaintiff for the w'ork set out in the bill of particulars, and never asked him to do the work and promised to pay him. There were no blunders in the specifications, and plaintiff had repeatedly told him the plans were the plainest and best he ever worked from. He related "what took place relative to the payment of the £100 for extras. Witness refused to give a final certificate as the work had not been properly carried out, and inferior material had been used. , The. witness . was cross-examined at considerable length. John Newland also gave corroborative evidence. Mr.; Cooper addressed the Court, Mr. llesketh replied. Judgment was given for defendant with costs £4. 10s 6d. Mr. Hesketh objected to a witness being allowed costs who was not supoenaed. Mr. Cooper said that notwithstanding the ruling of Mr. Justice Williams, there was a tacit understanding that this point should not be raised. If costs were allowed, they were prepared to take them at- their own risk. His Worship said the question being raised, he could not allow the costs of witnesses who had not been supoenaed, and. could only allow 26s costs. : Walter McCaul v. Charles Hooker and Prank Shepherd.—The claim was for £2 2s. Mr. Thorne appeared for the defendants. The plaintift, a tailor, sued the defendants, painters, for rent fcr premises which they occupied as a paint shop, and for expenses incurred in replacing panes of gloss and cleaning the premises. The defence was that the money was not due, that the defendants had given due notice of their intention to give up occupation, and that the place was as clean when they Jeffc as when they went into it, and that they had replaced such glass as was broken during their tenancy. Several witnesses were examined. Judgment was given for defendants, with :osts, £1 18s 6d. John' Smith v. John Robinson.—The plaim was for £13 Is 4d, for board and lodging. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, ind Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defence, rha plaintiff deposed that he claimed for jight weeks' residence of the defendant and iris wife. Cross-examined :He had several settlements of accounts with the plaintiff, Jut none since this claim arose. He was inlebted to the defendant in July, 1880, for E9 or £10, but lie claimed £20, but ou going lito accounts witness admitted owing £9 Bs, ind lie gave an 1.0. U. for the amount. The i locument was put in evidence. It was in ] ull of all debts and demands, and was stated i ifter the claim now sued for arose. Judglient was given for the defendant with costs, i El 6s. ' j Watson and Murray v. Henry Phil- i 'IPS.—The claim was for £3 6s, balance of an i iccount. The defence was that the account 1 lad been settled. The original sum said to l >e due on this account, and Mr. Mackechnie 1 ccepted £20 in payment in full. After i learing the evidence, judgment was deferred i ill Court day 1