MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 11122, 9 November 1907, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M.) TUie base of Frederick Hall v. W. F. Sinclair, claim £148 17s 3d, was heard at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. Mr F. W. Nolan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr G. Stock for defendant. Frederick i Hall, the plaintiff, stated that, the account produced had not been : paid.— By Mr 'Stock : Witness was i a partner wjth Mr Sinclair in the Tolaga Bay hotel / when the material was supplied. They dissolved partnership in July, 1906. Witness previously offered defendant a , sum to go out of the business,. which 1 was not accepted. Defendant paid plaintiff £1000 for his interest in the partnership. The matter of the installation of the gas plant was not included in the £1000. The installation of the gas was a partnership debt.— By Mr Nolan : As the partnership was dissolved as from the 30th June, the, work was not done by the time of the dissolution. * James Smith Allen, manager of Hall and SonsV plumbing business, stated the particulars of claim, had been made up from bisybook. Witness then went through the account,, pointing out several items, amounting to £1 16s 9d, that had to be credited, as the goods had been re- ■ turned.— Mr Stock said that if liable they admitted the rest of the items on the account excepting the acetylene gas plant. —Continuing, witness said defendant ask- [ ed for a quotation for installing .the plant. Witriess went to Tolaga Bay, inspected the house, and ascertained what defendant required. He required 24 lights arid a gas generator, capable of supplying 30 lights. Witness told defendant that the cost would be /about £106. Defendant ' authorised the work to.be done. Aj little ' of the/ work was done in March, 1906, ' and was continued again the, first week in July. When the work was recommeri- J ded, defendant wanted some alterations done, wluch required a 60-light; generator instead of a 30, which meant an extra ; cost of £10. The alterations included* six : extra lights, which meant 169ft more piping, costing £2 16s 4d, Without labor. ; The quotation was thus increased to £134 , 12s 4d, including . the cost of- 4cwt of carbide at 5d per lb.— By Mr Stock':. It was riot agreed to supply two drums /of carbide with the installation. ,I'he exti;a work took two men 47£ hours' to do. Witness did not think he Was sent to Tolaga Bay by the plaintiff. The fixing of the pump occupied two days, including the time occupied in travelling; £5 j was a fair price under the cifchmstancesy Mr Nolan asked leave to call rebutting evidence. . / •; .Mr Stock said the defence was that the account was supposed to have, been liquidated at the time of the dissolution, v "V Wm. F. Sinclair, defendant, said he had a conversation with plaintiff the day before the dissolution. Witness first agreed to accept £700 to go out, or give ; /plaintiff £800 -for him to go out, that ahiount to include everything. Plaintiff said he wanted £1000.' The question of the installation- of the gas was riot mentioned at that time. "Witness got. a-.'vol-untary quotation from another "firm for £96 10s. The carrying of the pipes to the stables occupied about half a day. Witness supplied board for two men, the amount of which - was £5 7s.— By Mr Nolan : /The day before tlie settlement was effected witness might have given instructions for a sale note to 'be made out for £700, but it was cancelled the same night. '...-..'" *•' Rees Jones, plumber, said it took about ; 9_ hours to extend the pipes to the stables. Mr Nolan said he wished to call evidence as to what took .place at the time oithe dissolution, ' /." J. W. Nolari stated that the; sale note of £700 was prepared and given. to de 7 * fendant, who glanced through, it. De-r fendaihl returned in the nioraing, and said he would npt sell for £700. Defendant theii ■ said hp would take it over from • plaintiff for £900, and witness told him to see plaintiff, which he did, and ,the present arrangement was carried through. Nothing was said about outstanding accounts. His Worship gave judgment this morning as follows : — . *Tn reference to the question bf jurisdiction raised' by counsel for the defence 1 , I am of opinion that this Court has jurisdiction, as there is no bona fide dispute of partnership accounts between the parties.. It ig true that plaintiff and defendant were partner, in connection with the business of the Tolaga Bay hotel; being the premises to which tbi_ claim relates. It is clear tliat had it been ' necessary upon dissolution of partnership between the parties to have gone into accounts, that this claim would have had to be considered, but in my opinion the question of whether there was or-, was not a partnership does not properly arise in this case. Plaintiff did the work and supplied material to defendant in the same, manner as any ordinary tradesman would have done irrespective of the partnership. It appears to me that plairitiff is in the same position as if defendant had employed some other tradesman to do the job. 'Tt is admitted that the defendant on the 28th July. 1906, bought out plaintiffs interest in the partnership for the sum of £1000, and defendant contends that the amount of the present claim, was included in that amount. This is not at all borne out by the evidence, on the contrary, -defendant admits having gone to Mr Allen, plaintiff^ manager, about two months ago and asked him to reduce tlie amount of ; the claim and' he would settle with liim; This is entirely inconsistent with liis statement that the amount was included'*-,' in the £1000, paid by the defendant to plaintiff on the dissolution of the- partnership. Tlie only question remaining, therefore, is whether the work ha_ been done, and as to whether the charges are fair and reasonable.* It is contended by defendant that some of tlie charges are excessive, viz., fixing the pump, and; also the acetylene gas plant. Tn reference to ' the pump : The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff is that the charges are fair, and reasonable, and 'no ; tradesman has been called to contradict ; it. A s to the gas plant : The evidence is that the estimate given to defendant , by. Mr Allen, plaintiff's manager, for tlie i work 'and; material Was £106 ; but extra \ material and labor were added at request [ of defendant, including 4001bs of carbide L calcium -'which increased the amount by £28 12s 4d. The evidence on behalf of [ plaintiff is that the charges are reason- ; able, and no evidence has been called by defendant to the contrary. "Judgment will therefore be for plain- ; tiff for. the amount claimed , £148 17s 3d ; . ksa further credits than those given in , the claim, which : plaintiff admits defen- [ dant is entitled to. £1 16s 9d. I also allow a further credit of £5 7s for board, supplied by defendant to Jones and. Gray, ;' leaving a balance in favor of plaintiff of £141 13s 6d, for which amount *I give judgment, with costs .£lO 195."