MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11947, 22 January 1901, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, January 21, (Before Mr E. H. Carew, S.M.) In the (following cases judgment was entered [ up by default for the plaintiff mining com- | pßiiics, with co3ts, for calls duo on shares: — Laftanchi's Freehold Gold Dredging Company (for whom Mr Whito appeared) v. Thomas Dewar (Roxburgh), claim £2 10s; seme v. Alexander Craigie, claim £15s; same v. Samuel M'Aulay (Arrowtown), claim £L 5s ; Claughesy's Freehold Gold Dredging Company (for whom Mr James appeared) v. Thomas Cahill (Cromwell), Claim £3 15s; same v. Frederick Shury (Gfcymouth), claim £15; same v. Patrick Spencer Taylor (Cromwell), claim £7 10s; Morvon Ferry Gold Dredging Company, (for whom Mr James appeared) v. Denis A. Cahill (Cromwell), claim £5; same v. Thomas H. Cahill (Cromwell), claim £12 10s. John H. Ford (for whom Mr Allan appeared) v. Mr Hallord.—Claim Bs, being the amount due on an account for a pair of boots. John M'Lean v. Allan Ramsay.—Claim 2s Gd, for two bluegum clothes posts.—Plaintiff did not appear, and Mr Fraser, who appeared for defendant, naked that the case bo struck out,— This was accordingly done, and costs amounting to £1 lis lid were allowed against plaintiff. Alexander Kilpatrick (Wa-itati) v. Charles Barham Morris (Duntroon. —Claim. £48. 2s Bd, for goods supplied.—Mr Gallaway appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Barclay for defendant — In this case defendant objected to pay on tile -. ground that the goods wore ordered by his wife without his authority, he being separated from her, and an agreement having been drawn iip between them by which lie was to pay a certain sum weekly for the maintenance of her and their children. It was shown in evidence that defendant had not made regular payment bf tho amounts stipulated for in the agreement. —After hearing the case, his Worship intimated that he would give judgment on Friday. Foster and George v. the Union Bank of Australia (Limited), Timothy J. l Collins (dentist), and Millen Coughtrey (surgeon),—Claim £'20 6s 6d, for work and labour done and material supplied at tho defendant bank's premises, Princes street.—Mr Calvert appeared for plaintiffs, Mr J. A. Cook for the Union' Bank, and Mr F. Stilling for ilio defendants Collins and for the plaintiffs said that as the plaint uoto showed, the action waß for payment for work and labour done by plaintiffs in Dr Coughtrey's and Mr Collins's rooms on the bank's premises. Tho facts were that tho plaintiffs asked the bank for certain alterations and repairs to the rooms occupied by them respectively. During the course of the work it appeared that a basin which formed part of the necessary outfit to a dentist's rooms had not been provided for in the specifications for thb contract. Several conversations about it took place, with the result that Mr George was asked to give "Mr Hislop, the bank's architect, a price for the work. Half the cost of the alterations was charged to Dr Coughtrey and half to Mr Collins. These gentlemen also \vantcd meters put in, for special supplies of gas, and four meters were put in instead of one. Mr Hislop gave instructions for all the work to be done. Defendants had paid into court £G Is 6d on a number of the items, and the only items his Worship would bo asked to adjudicate on were the cost of. the basin and the mefti'6. Plaintiffs sent all the accounts to Mr Hislop, but tliey had never been paid. Dr Coughtrey and Mr Collins said that these things were all supplied by the bank, and under section 54 of the act counsel had joined the three defendants to the action. ' Ho did not think there would bo any dispute as to the supply of the items in the claim or as to their value.—Evidence was given by the plaintiffs, James Hislop, and Edward Waldren.—Mr Cook submitted that the else for the bank was that no order had been given on behalf of the bank for supplying the extras referred to in the statement of claim. As far as they were concerned, it was easy to see how the clainu had arisen. Mr Collinß arranged to sub-let a portion of the premises to Dr Coughtrey. The premises had to be divided, and of course tho meter -service hod to be duplicated. They naturally wished the bank to pay for this, So far as the basin was concerned, it was not in the specifications, and no order had been given .by tho bank for it. Mr George said that he got the order by telephone from Mr Waldren, but tho latter denied this.—His Worship said lie did not think tlicro was nny necessity to call evidence on behalf of tho bank.—Mr Calvert held that the bank was not entitled to judgment at that stage, and suggested that his Worship should hear the evidence of the other defendants.—Mr Carew: There can be harm in doing that—Mr Stilling said that Mr Waldren colled on Mr Collins, and told him that the meters would be put downstairs. As it was more convenient to have' them upstairs, Mr Collins said he would pay part of tho cost. Ho would put an expert plumber in the box to show that it was no more difficult to put them upstairs than downstairs, and there was nothing very complicated about it—Evidence was then given by T. J. Collins. Dr Cousrhtrey, Robert Scott (certificated plumber), and Henry William Reid —After hearing the case, his Worship held that it-was not shown that defendants authorised the work, and entered up judgment against the plaintiffs with costs.