R.M. Court.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 12, 10 August 1894, Page 2

R.M. Court.

(Before Major Tuke, S.M. Thursday August 9th, 1894. CIVIL CASES. Dobbie v. Ross; claim, £ls 12s 6d for wages. Mr Scott-Smith appeared for defendant. Plaintiff, sworn, stated that he was engaged by defendant to build a house for Mr Strauehon at Pungarehu about the 11th March last, at 10s per day. Cross-examined by Mr Scott-Smith: No plans or specifications were laid before witness until the 15bh or 16th of March. Defendant told him how much he was getting for the job. Did not say he could put it.up for that and leave a profit. Had carried out the plans and specifications as far as possible. If it were stated that the work could have been done ia half the time he would contradict it. Had left the specifications in the building. Did not destroy them. Mr Strauehon told him to leave them there. Did not know what had become of the plans. Admitted that he had not put two of the doors where they were shown on the plan, as the owner of the house had requested them to be altered. Knew the contract price was £B2. His claim was £27. Knew that Harrison was also to get £l4. Did not give any undertaking to cany out the work so that defendant would make a profit. Agreed to allow £1 11s lid for goods debited :o defendant, but had not had the bills of detail rendered to him. J. J. Ross deposed that he engaged the plaintiff to work on the house at Pungarehu. Before doing so had told plaintiff how much he was to get for the job. Plaintiff stated that he considered it a fair price, and as he waa idle he would do it, and undertook that witness should not lose by it. Could not find the specifications, and plaintiff told him that he had torn them up. Witness and another man had been a week overhauling the work which plaintiff had done wrong. The fan-light shown in the plan was omitted by plaintiff without his authority. Further evidence was adduced to show that the work performed by the plaintiff was only worth about £ls instead of £27 charged, aud an adjournment was granted till next court day to allow the plaintiff an opportunity of sending a man to value the work on his behalf, at the suggestion of the Magistrate. E. 0. Middleton v. Mac Neill; claim, £4 6s for fencing destroyed by a bush tire. Mr Scott-Smith appeared for defendant. Mr Scott-Smith made a premliliminary objection, which he considered placed plaintiff out of court—viz., that the land in question was not Mr Mac Neill’s, but belonged to Mrs Mac Neill. The Magistrate held that the person who set fire to the bush was the one to be held responsible. Mr Middleton deposed that he saw smoke on the 23rd February, which he conclude^ came from defendant’s property, as no one else had any bush felled in that direction. A few days after he made an examination, which confirmed his suspicious. Cross-examined by Mr Scott-Smith: It might have been accidental, but thought it hardly probable, as it was very rarely anyone wont up the road. Was quite positive about dates. As defendant was not pre&nt, the case was adjourned till next court day to admit of bis attendance. Gapper v. Crawford ; claim, £2 16s 7dforWages. f Mr Bennett appeared for plaintiff. The defendant disputed £1 of the amount, which be asserted he had paid plaintiff, but ns he had no receipt or other account to show judgment was given for plaintiff for amount chimed and costs.