CLAIM AND COUNTER CLAIM.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 13645, 27 March 1915, Page 7

CLAIM AND COUNTER CLAIM.

Evidence, for llir defendant, was taken at tlie "Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon m the Tolaga Hay case of Charles Waide, Tolaga I'ay (Mr Burnard), v. F. Hall and Sons (Mr 'Bright). The claim was for £77 18s. being made up ai* follows : Concrete work and ' building .shed .i>37 14s 6d, cartage- £23 9s 6d, carting chaff and shingle £10 9s, and one ton chaff £6. Defendants eouuter-elSinied for 18s Id, the items being: Amount paid to plaintiff fur li- ton's chaff £8 14s, cash £5, order O'Shea £3. goods plied £2 14s Id, hire of dray (11 weeks at. 10s per week) £5 10s.

.lames Morton Swain., master plumper, stated that he estimated the value of the wookwork m the. .shed and concrete at about £20. He was working on the same Contract (the Tolaga Bay Ha. 1 '). From Hall's shop, at Tolaga, to Hie cottages would he about 300 yards. A big three-horse dray load to and from Lhe shop might be worth 5s 6d. Plaintiff was carting daily, but. he only took very small loads. Witness could have carried some of them himself. An ample charge for the. carting would be 2s ocr lload. — To Mr "Burnard: Witness saw the greater part of the carting done by plaintiff. Ho had been m business for two years, and had a good deal of, carting done. Goodley and plaintiff had carted for him at Tolaga Bay. He had done one or two jobs of woodwork m Gisborne, but was not an experienced builder. Most of plaintiff's time was occupied m carting to defendant's job. On occasions it might cost a carter just as much to go for a few pounds weight as for half' a ton. — To Mr Bright: But the loading and unloading would r.ot take so long. In the case m question the principal item was m the handling of t'.io material.

Israel Mirfield, architict, stated he !.ad over 40 years' experience with building contracts' ahd estimating tho value of work. Ho. know the shed m question, and estimated the value uf the woodwork and concreting at £18 15s, being estimated as follows : 300 ft timber i' 3, labor £1 10s, folding door £2 15s, window' £1, concrete £10 10s. He was instructed to allow plenty for the timber and work, and made his estimate £24. — To Mr Burnard : Witness' firm was now defendant's architect, being engaged m connection with extensive alterations to the Masonic hotel.

William George Loving, master electrician, employed by defendants, said he checked the material that came from the shed. There were 200 super, feet of timber, one door, one window, eight yards gravel, eight yards spawls, 18 bags cement and a barrow load of fine' sand. Witness fixed the value of the w r ork at £23. He s-aw some of tho carting, but never saw one good load. At times, at defendant's representative's request, plaintiff would take some piping or a sheet of iron. Witness thought 2s a load would . be a fair charge. — To Mr Burnard : Witness had had no experience as a builder or a carter, and not a great deal at employing carting. Archie Kirk, builder, said he estimated the value of tlie shed and concrete at £20 15s. Plaintiff had charged witness 5s 6d per ton for carting* For such loads as had been described 2s or 2s 3d would be ample. — To Mr Burnard : The loads carted for witness at 5s 6d consisted of one ton ea<;h. There were occasions when a small load was worth just as much as a large load, it depended largely on the instructions given by the employer. — To Mr Bright : A charge of 5s 6d for carting a few pounds of material from tlie shop to tho job Mas ridiculous. Frank Ibbotson Daniell, clerk, said he supervised defendant's Tolaga Bay business. He had had nine years' experience at estimating painting, plumbing, electric light and timber work. He valued the shed and concrete at £23, outside value. They allowed £4 10s for the carting and plaintiff charged £23 odd. A fair price for an average load from the shop to the cottages would be 2s.

William Albert Hall, a member of the firm of F. Hall and Son, gave " evidence regarding the items m the counterclaim, producing receipts for some of the amounts claimed. They hired plaintiff a dray and some, harness for 11 weeks;, and" 10s a week was a f;iir charge, they having received Uu»-snme amount f roil i other persons who hired it. — To Mr Burnard : The dray was worth about £25.

Re-called Frank I. Daniell gave evidence as to the item m the counterclaim, for goods supplied. William Oswald Skeet, builder and architect, said he valued the timber work of the shed and concrete at £12 10s. — To Mr Burnard : For many years witness had done wcrk for and been associated with Hr Hall.

Recalled, Frank I. Daniell said defendants did all the iron work m connection with the shed, and most of the labor m mixing the concrete. This' concluded the evidence. Costs were fixed as follows : Plaintiff £3 17s, defendants £9 6s.