DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2996, 16 August 1911, Page 38

DUNEDIN S.M. COURT.

Tuesday, August 8. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowa* n, S.M.) Judgment was given by default in tiro following cases;—D.l.C. (Mr Moore) v. Patrick Gardiner (Winton), claim £4 13s 2d, on an account agreed upon (costs 12s); Laura Fraser (Mr Moore) v. Andrew Atkinson, claim £4 10s, for board and lodging (costs ssj ; Howden and Moncrieff (Mr Statham) v. Murdoch M'Lennan (Gore), claim 12s ,6d, goods sold (costs ss); W. Gregg and Co. (Mr Statham) v. Hugh Georg© Webb (Timaru), churn £3 19s 6d, goods sold (costs ss); Drapery Supply Association (Mr •Ramsay) v. George Murdoch, claim £2 11s lOd, for drapery (costs ss); Jno. Hislop (Mr Hawkins) v. Georg© Carpenter (Mossburn), claim £3 2s 6d, cost of a watch (costs ss).

A Building Dispute.—Andrew Russell, of Dunedin, accountant (as assignee of James Peter Thorn, of Waitati, building contractor) v. Jessie M'Grath, of Seaclifl, claim £73 18 6d, for goods and material supplied and work done in connection with the building of a house at Scacliff. Mr W. L. Moore appeared for the plaintiff and Mr J. MacGregor for the defendant.—Mr Moore said the plaintiff was asked to add rooms and a passage to a house at Seaclilf, at a price of £B7. Then Mrs M'Grath had changed her mind, and different alterations had been made. There was no contract entered into for these alterations—no specified price was given. Counsel submitted that a fair price had been charged by plaintiff. A certain amount had been paid, and his client was endeavouring to collect the amount now duo. No complaint had been made about the building—no complaint about the price.—James Peter Thorn said his first quotation for the work was £B7, which price the defendant agreed to. Those alterations to the house, however, were not gone on with, but a now plan was decided on. No price was stipulated for as regarded the latter alterations. He had received £6O from the defendant, out of that he had paid the painter £2B.—William Vickary said ho had been connected with the building trade for 40 or 50 years, tie was engaged now in making an estimate of the cost of work, etc. The witness went on to detail the cost of the work at Mrs M‘Grath’s house as estimated by him. Ho calculated the job was worth' £ll7 (exclusive of the cost of the painting). If a Dunedin man had taken the contract, and had to take his men and material to Seacliff from Dunedin, he considered the job would have cost some £IBO. The work was not first class, hut was a fair average for a country job.—Mr MacGregor said there was a contract between his client and Thorn to do certain work for the sum of £BS, and he related at length the circumstances under which the work had been completed.—The defendant, in her evidence, said plaintiff had told her that the alterations would not cost over £Bs.—Margaret M'Grath and Robert Crawford (contractor) also gave evidence.—Mr Moore said this was the first ho had heard that the question of a contract was to be pleaded. As plaintiff could get two witnesses wh6 could give material evidence in regard to this matter ho would ask for an adjournment so that this evidence could be secured.—Mr MacGregor said he had never heard of such an audacious and cool proposal. He would object to the adjournment. —Plis Worship said ho thought it was now too late to make the application. After further argument, however, his Worship said ho would adjourn the case till Thursday to allow of Mr Moore seeing Mr Russell.

Thursday, August 10. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases: —J. and J. Arthur v. James W. Marshall (Teinuka), claim £1 2s 6d, goods; Frank W. Ansell v. Charles Hodgson (Burnside), claim £ll 14s, on an account stated; Johnston, Sons, and Co. v. Thomas M‘Do well (Southbndge), claim £3 15s, for a Bible; Hordern and White v. John Beale (Mosgiol), claim £6, balance due on pony gig; William Ginsberg v. Horace Davis (Gisborne), claim £1 17s, drapery; F. W. Petre v. James Lynch (Wrey’s Bush), claim £27 12s. architect’s fees in connection with a church at Nightcaps. Barclay and Scunr v. F. B. Galland. — Claim, £7 2s, on a judgment summons. — Mr ftchrr examined the debtor. —His Worship made an order varying the judgment by directing the defendant to pay by instalments of 10s per month. Robert Hart y. John C. Walters. —Claim, £8 13s. 6d, on a judgment summons.—Mr D. Cooke appeared tor plaintiff, and Mr Scurr for defendant, and after healing evidence his Worship declined to make an order.

Russell (as assignee of James Peter Thorn) v. Jessie M'Grath. —Claim, £75 8s 6d, for work and material pn a house at Sea-cliff. —Mr Moor© for plaintiff, Mr John MacGregor for defendant. —In this partly-heard case Mr Moore said that lie was taken by surprise by the defence that there was a contract for a lump sum, and he therefore asked to be allowed to call further evidence.—After argument on the point, his Worship ruled against Mir Moore, but Thorn was recalled by the court, and examined at considerable length. —Mr Moore then asked to bo allowed to call evidence to meet something that had been disclosed by Thorn in re-examination. —The Magistrate ruled that the case was closed, and in giving judgment said be did not think th& extension mid uli>etrxitiorx of the contract amounted to abandonment. It would have been a simple matter to have gone on with the old contract and charged for extras. It was his duty to hold, upon the whole evidence, that there was no abandonment, and that all the work don© outside of the contract was extra. Plaintiff must be nonsuited, with costs. —Mr Moore said that he would bring the case again, and believed that he could prove it in favour of the plaintiff, and he suggested that to save expense the expert evidence might be dispensed with. —His Worship said it might be possible to so arrange. _ Helen J. Garni® v. Jane Moodie. —Claim, £3 l&s 6d, half-cost of a dividing fence between plaintiff’s and defendant’s properties in Russell street, the claim being disputed by defendant on the ground that the fence was not continuous along the whole boundary.—Mr Calvert appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Baron for defendant. —After evidence the case was adourned to next, Tuesday to enable his Worship to visit the ground and satisfy himself as to whether it was practicable to put a 6ft paling fence down a steep bank.