PAHIATUA S.M. COURT.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume V, Issue 560, 22 October 1897, Page 4

PAHIATUA S.M. COURT.

Wednesday, October 20,1897

(Before Mr Haselden, 8.M.)

On the Court resuming on Wednesday afternoon His Worship delivered judgment in the case Levin v. Webb and Laird as follows :

“ I think the plaintiff is entitled to judgment herein. The defendant pleads that under section 15 of the Workmen’s Wages Act she is entitled to sot off against the price of the house the damages she claims are due to her from the contractor for breach of contract. 1 do not think that at the time the plaintiff’s notice of charge was lodged the defendant could say there was any sum due to her from the contractor for breach of contract. The transaction between the contractor and the defendant was a vague and unsatisfactory one, and I am not at all satisfied that the contractor agreed to perform all the work claimed to he done. It seems plain that the house is worth nearly £IOO, and the defendant says the contractor agreed to do all this for £SO. The defendant, in contravention of section 8, prepaid the contractor nearly the whole of the contract price, and by so doing prejudiced the plaintiff’s rights, unless she is precluded under the Act from taking advantage of such payments. I think both law and equity are on the side of the plaintiff. As to the amount of the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant’s witness, Godfrey, estimates the work at £6 11s, plus £8 Ts 6d for glazing, which he had not reckoned. Between £0 18s Gd and £ll 4d there is only a difference of £1 5s Gd, which shows that there is no great overcharge on plaintiffs part. Judgment for £ll 4s and costs.

D. Puckle v. Pahiatua Borough Council, claim £1 14s Gd damages. —Mr Tosswill for plaintiff, Mr G. 11. Smith for defendant.

Duncan Puckle deposed he had been riding his bicycle for years. Was in Pahiatua on the the li)th of September in the middle of the road. Suddenly he ran into a barricade on the road. He did not see it until lie got within three feet of it. He threw himself off his machine to avoid a frightful accident and landed on his feet. His machine was damaged to the extent of his claim. Had no light on his machine. It was moonlight. There was no sign of a light on the barricade. Had claimed damages from the Council but was refused.

G. C. Miller, town clerk, produced the contract between Flaherty and the Council.

Morgan Flaherty, contractor, deposed : He had a contract from the Borough Council for putting pipes across Main-street. Had been instructed to keep lights burning at night. Put two light there on the night in question and did not know whether the lights went out or not. H. E. V. Crawford deposed: He was driving through Main-strcc-t on the evening of the 10th September about 10.80 o’clock. His horse shied at the barricade when lie was about half a chain off. It was moonlight. Had no lights because it was better to drive by moonlight. Mr Smith said he would not call any evidence, as most of the facts were admitted.

Considerable argument ensued between both the counsel engaged. Judgment was reserved.

Thursday, October 21.

In the case Puckle v. Pahiatua Borough Council judgment was delivered as follows :

“On the evening of the 10th September last at about 10.80 p.in. the plaintiff, while riding a bicycle through the main street of the town, was suddenly confronted with a barricade erected by the defendant’s contractor round an excavation made by such contractor in the street. In order to escapo worse damage the plaintiff threw himself off the bicycle which was thereby injured to the extent of £1 Its Gd. The plaintiff was at the time committing two breaches of the borough bye-laws, for he hail no light on his bicyclo and he was riding at ten miles an hour, the bye-laws only permitting a speed of six miles. These two circumstances are relied upon by the defendants as affording a defence of contributory negligence. It was, however, a moonlight night, and the evidence of experts is in favor of the theory that a lamp on the bicycle would not have enabled the plaintiff to avert the accident, nor would a speed of six miles an Lour havo saved him. Section 2GB of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1880, throws upon the Municipal Corporation the duty of keeping obstructions such as were erected in this case lighted throughout the night, and this obstruction was net so lighted, and the cause of tho accident was the want of light on tho obstruction. It is on this statutory requirement that luy judgment must turn, distinguishing the case from a somewhat similar one tried before me last month at Greytow.i. There is no question as to the amount of the damages, and judgment will therefore he for £1 1 Is Gd and costs.