LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7403, 11 August 1885, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

DISTRICT COURT.—-MONDAY.

Before H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., District Judge.] Christie and Another v. Harriet Levi.— Claim, £31 7s sd, balance of account.—Mr. Cotter appeared for the plaintiff.—Defendant did not appear.—Miss Christie proved the case, and judgment was given for the amount claimed, and costs, £4 13s. Oliver v. Malcilmson.—This was a case heard at the last sitting of the Court, when judgment was reserved to ascertain the meaning of the arbitration clause of a building contract.—His Honor now held that clause 14 provided that the final certificate of the architect was not of itself conclusive as to the completion of the contract. _ He held that the case must go to arbitration before the action could be brought under clause 20. Mr. E. Hesketh, instructed by Mr. Griffiths, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cotter for the defendant. Mr. Heaketh accepted a nonsuit ; costs, £5 14?.

James Kelly v. Hibbard, Legge, and Warbcrton.—ln this oase the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £25 12s Bd, balance due by defendants for work done and materials provided by the plaintiff for the defendants at their request, and also to recover interest from the 31st July.—For the defendant Warburtou the defence was that at the time the work was done he was net a partner with Hibbard and Legge, and for the defendants Hibbard and Legge, indebtedness was admitted to the amount of £8 12s Bd. They also pleaded that the water engine provided by the plaintiff was so improperly constructed that the defendants had to incur great expense to complete it, and they also put in a sot-off for £s.—Mr. Napier appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. Campbell for the defence.—Witnesses were ordered out of Court. The plaintiff to the action is an iron and brass founder, and the defendants manufacturers of patent stone. The principal item of the claim was for the supply and erection of a water engine, £50, feed valve £2, and some other fittings (flanges) £1, making in all £53, in dispute. Tho whole question turned on whether the engine was supplied in a proper and workmanlike manner, and whether it was fit for the purposes for which it was intended.—The plaintiff, James Kelly, deposed to the arrangement made by him with Messrs. Hibbard and Legge, regarding the water engine, and they agreed on the price, £50. —John Hooton, organist of the Beresford Congregational Church, deposed to enquiry as to a water engine for blowing the organ, and he received a letter from Mr. Legge stating that the water engine erected by Mr. Kelly was satisfactory, and recommending it for the purpose he required. He subsequently saw the defendants, and they told him the engine suited their purpose, and thought it would suit him.—Joseph H. Jones, engineer, gave evidence as to examining the engine and fittings, and estimated the value at £55. The rule was in fitting machinery some charges for extras were made. The £55 would inoluded connections and placing the engine in its position. To place valves on the city main would be an extra. In cross-examination he said he had only seen the machinery at the foundry, not at the works. —John Carter, employed in the machinery department of Byoroft and Co., and a pattern-maker and millwright by trade, who made some of the patterns for the engine in dispute, also gave evidence as to the efficiency of the engine, hut he had not seen it erected. He estimated the value of the engine at from £25 to £30, but, including fittings required and connections, it would he from £50 to £55.— Thomas Robert Graham, plumber, who laid the piping and made the connections for the water engine, gave evidence as to the quantity of piping laid and the cost. —This closed the plaintiff's case.—For the defence, Edwin Legge deposed to the deficiency of some of the machineryone casting being cracked and broken. The agreement was that the machine was to be complete and in working order before they took it over. He never agreed to alter the machine. — Charles Hibberd, who made an affirmation iD lieu of an oath, deposed that Mr. War burton had never been a partner with him in any way. He then gave evidence as to the arrangement re the water machine. He said Kelly undertook to lay on pipes and do all that was necessary, and gave them the machine able to work to any speed they required. He agreed to find everything that was necessary. Witness produced a model of the machinery and the motive power, and explained them to the Court.—The case had not concluded when the Court rose,