Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Pukekohe. Thursday. (Hef„re Mr E. Rawson, Hi.) NO ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE. William Taupa was charged with that on Oc'obcr 11th he plied a launch for hue and carried freight in the Waikato river, and did not carry a certificated master or engineer. The case had been taken up by the Marin; Department. Defendant, who pleaded suiltv, said he understood he c; u1 d u-e he launch by viriiia of a fishing licenso held by his partner, not for pastenders but for fright. He was fined £l, costs £1 9s. • JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. J, B Kerr v. William McKenzie, judgment by default for £4 and 5s costs, C. E Penny v. Davis, judgment by Jefauls for £2 17s 6 , costs 6s. J. B Kerr, v. John Keat, judgment by default for 18s 6d, costs ss. CLAIM FOR £2. J. J. Droomgool, farmer, of l'uakau, tued ■ the Pukbkche Eist Road Board for £2, teinp; balance ! of money alleged to be o*ing on a £ls contra t, for work on McGahan's road, Tuakau The Bjard declined to psy, contending that the contract was not completed. Mr J. G. Haddow appeared far the defence. The statement for the plaintiff was that the work was faithfully completed, and the solicitor suggested that ths unseating of Mr Droomgool, sepr., from the Board, and the election of other members, had played a part in the refusal of the Board ti pay. The different between the par'ti.s was one of interpretation as to what wan meant by the term "grading" »s between two points. Defendants held that a section ol the read had to be grai(d ti a level slope; plaii.tiff contended <hat it was the "bumps" on the slopes that had to be levelled and graded, Plaintiff produced • a contract agreement; he completed the work in accordance with this document, and under his father's instructions. Defendant's counsel rejoined that plaintiff's father was off the Board before the contract was begun, a;d therefore was not entitled to give any certificat2 that the cantraut had been satisfactorily completed. J. A. Comrie, for some years chai - man of the Pukekohe East Roari Board, gave evidencs ad to what consiituted grading. Charles Drcomgool, father of plaintiff, said he wa3 authorised hy tha Board to lay out the work, Mr Lauer and.Mr Fulton, secretary and member of tha Board respectively, were with him. Ihe specifications were written by Mr Lauer; witnes-, on behalf of the Boar.!, entered ir:to the contract with plaintiff. He considered the work was done according to specifita-

tions. G. P. Ewiiig said that the work un the road was fairly in accordance with the specifications ai he read them.

Walter Gubb ard Thomas Dioomgcol gave similar evidence. Henry Wilcox, member of the Pukckohe East Koad Boatii, deposed th:>t the grading work was not done ;cc rdin r to the specificstioip. ' r . Lawrence, farmer, said the lump 3 on the road had been levelled down, but the rocd had not been graded tn the disputed section. Mr Hacdow a ked jor a no'i-suit tn the evidence of the plaintiff's own witnesses. After legal argument, F. Lauer, clerk to the Pukekohe East Hoad Board, deposed that the Board did rot act on the clearance certificate of MrDroomgorl, senr, as Mr Drojmgool had rottjing to do with the work. The Magistrate said if the interpretation of the specifications was that th 3 road had to be graded, then the work had not bee'i done; if only the Lumps had t . be ievelled, thsn it had been djne. Tha construction His Worship put upon the document was that tlie "tumps" only "were to be levelled and graded. The non-suit being declined, Mr Hac'dow said he » would call evidence (o show there wera 1,0 bum;,a on the ioad on the disputed section, and that tne levelling specifie i referied to the road itself, Mr Had low raised another paint, namely, that the aec.ptance of the £l3 debarred plaintiff from suing for tne £2 until he had first returned the £l3. This point wksu argued at lengili, and the Magistrate said he would consider the matter. If the non-suit were riot allowed the defence would have to be heard, but not before January next.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PWT19121206.2.14

Bibliographic details

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 1, Issue 49, 6 December 1912, Page 2

Word Count
701

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 1, Issue 49, 6 December 1912, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 1, Issue 49, 6 December 1912, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert