RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1148, 15 September 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

This Day. [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] There were no criminal cases for hearing this morning. Civil Cases. McLindon & Stewart v- Allan. Claim £lB 15s for wages due. The defendant, who was present, admitted his indebtedness, and stated that he was quite willing to pay the men so soon as he received payment from the Cook County Council for the balance due on his contract for the formation of the Mangatu road. His Worship pointed out to the plaintiffs that they had not gone the right way to work to secure their money. He could not give a verdict for plaintiffs conjointly in this case. They should have sued separately, and they ought to have taken the precaution of giving a notice under the Contractors’ Debts Act, whereby they could have secured the money now in the hands of the County Council due to the defendant. They the (plaintiffs) had made a mess of it, but he would do the best for them he could under the circumstances, seeing that the liability was not denied by the defendant. He would give judgment for the plaintiff McLindon for £lO and costs, and allow the plaintiff Stewart to take out a fresh summons for the £8 15s owing to him, which he would hear in the afternoon, at 2 o’clock, if the parties consented. This was agreed to. Mr McLindon applied for his mileage for the service of the summons. His Worship enquired why it had not been served by the Bailiff of the Court. It was ascertained on investigation that the whereabouts of the defendant were not actually known, and the plaintiff McLindon had undertaken the service himself. His Worship allowed the mileage 14s. McLindon then asked His Worship to make an order so that the Cook County Council should not pay over the balance due to defendant on account of his contract. His Worship said that as the plaintiff had not complied with the Act, it was completely out of his power to make or enforce such an order. e. p. joyce v. Allan. Claim £3O for money lent. The amount was admitted. The plaintiff asked His Worship to make an order whereby he could obtain the money from the Cook County Council out of the sum they now held belonging to defendant. His Worship said he could not do so, as the Contractors’ Act only made provision for wages workmen, and not for money lent. Judgment was given for plaintiff for full amount and costs. On the Court resuming at 2 p.m. the case of Stewart v. Allen, claim £8 15s, for wages, was taken. The amount was admitted, and judgment was given for the plaintiff for the full amount and costs.

Orders under the Contractors’ Debt Act of 1871 were made in the cases of McLindon and Stewart.