MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4983, 16 April 1889, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TlMAßU— Tuesday, April 16. (Before C. A. Wray. Esq., 8.M.) CITII CASES. Judgment by default was given in the following cases: —George Barker y, D. McKay, junr., £lO 18s lOd; E. G. Kerr v. E. Edgeworth, £lO ss; same v. T. McKay, £B. Judgment summons, Gabites and Plante v. A, Horne, £ll3s Bd, reduced to 17s 2d by payments. Debt ordered to be paid in a fortnight. J. Hall v. Docherty, claim £2O damages for breach of contract. Mr Hay for plaintiff, Mr White for defendant. J. Hall, carting contractor, js airlie Creek, plaintiff, stated that in March 1888 he tendered for laying out 16 miles of rabbit fencing material between Pukaki Lake and the Jollio river—l 6 miles. The tenders were invited privately. Saw defendant at the Shamrock Hotel, and told him he had put in a tender. Defendant asked witness to withdraw as he was going in a little higher, and he would have the preference as ho hsd the first contract (carting from Fairlio Creek to Pukaki.) Witness was to withdraw his tender, and defendant was to give him the work at witness’s tender price, defendant pocketing the difference between (he two tenders as a 'profit. Docherty accompanied witness to Grade and Maclean’s, to see Mr Wood, and get him to write out a withdrawalDefendant seemed very anxious to make sure that his offer was withdrawn, and as if he was afraid witness would not withdraw it. Defendant got the work of laying out j did not know at what price. Later, when witness asked defendant when he was to start, ho said he had decided to do the work himself. Spoke to defendant about damages. Witness had two bullock teams ; and he was left idle for about six weeks through defendant’s action. The vyork—the whole of it—would have paid at 15s a ton. Estimated that he would have made £3O profit on the whole. When he first spoke to defendant about damages, defendant offered to let him lay out one portion of the fence, the worst five miles, but ho refused to have anything to do with it. Defendant on two occasions promised him something by way of compensation when he squared up with the Government, but afterwards refused to pay. Mr White cross-examined at some length, but did not alter plaintiff’s evidence. He estimated he had lost a profit of £ls per month on two months’ work, but looking at the size of the contract he did not think he could “ legally ” claim more than £2O, and therefore sued for that.

Jones, another tenderer, who was present I at the interview at the Shamrock Hotel, bad been examined on a previous day. His evidence as to what transpired then agreed with that of plaintiff, as to the arrangement: for the withdrawal of plaintiff’s offer; but he did not understand that defendant agreed to giro plaintiff the whole of the laying out, only “ a show.” V, Dochorby, defendant, stated that ho mot plaintiff and Jones at the Shamrock Hotel the day he signed the contract, Feb. 27th, and plaintiff said he had been to the offco to see about the laying out but Mr Sutton did not know anything about it, and said Mr Foster would most likely arrange with the contractor. Plaintiff remarked that he (witness) would have the preference as the contractor for carting up, and so he would withdraw his tender. Told him he could please himself. Promised to give them both the " first show ” if ho found he could not do the work himself in the contract time. Never went with plaintiff to Mr Wood about the withdrawal. Was certain of that. Had never promised plaintiff compensation ; had never had any application from plaintiff for compensation before receiving the summons ; that was the first hint he had of any such claim. Dis tender for carting was accepted on Feb. 27th, and Mr Foster arranged with him to lay out the fencing for 15s a ton, atTekapo on March 19th. The defendant was cross-examined at length by Mr Hay, but be adhered to his story. He ’ denied that he ever made any agreement with plaintiff to give him the laying out; he could not hate promised him work ho had not got. To His Worship : No tender was ever called for this work. It was a private arrangement with Mr Foster. The public were not invited to tender, so far as witness was aware. lie would positively deny that he offered to give plaintiff the work or any part of it, if he withdrew his offer. George Brown, who was in defendant’s employment at the time, gave evidence

as to the offer being-made to plaintiff to lay out a part of the fencing at 15s a ton, which was declined, plaintiff saying he “ could not look at it at the price.” E. O. Kingswell, caretaker of the fence, was called to show that the portion of the fence offered to plaintiff was not the worst along the line. It was, however, worse than the average. His Worship said the evidence of the principals was very contradictory, but from all the circumstances he concluded that plaintiff had failed to make good his claim. It seemed more likely that defendant had only offered to give him and Jones ” a show.” _ _ , Mr Hay elected to take a non-suit, which was granted with costs £3 7s.