A BROKEN CONTRACT.

Southland Times, Issue 14635, 27 January 1911, Page 3

A BROKEN CONTRACT.

WOT UNDERSTOOD. Before Mr G. Cruickshank. S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, William Richmond, labourer, of Clifton, sued Alfred Dy.son, carter, from the same district, for the sum of £6 4s, for loss of time and damage as set forth in the following statement of claim: — (X) That in or about the month of November. 1910, the defendant entered into a verbal contract with the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff was to grub about 10 acres of tussock land at 12s per acre. (2) That after the plaintiff had commenced grubbing the said land under the contract the defendant employed some other person to do the said work, thus preventing the plaintiff from carrying out his contract. (3) That the plaintiff has always been willing to perform his part of the contract, but lias been prevented from doing so by reason of the aforesaid broach of contract on ttic part of the defendant. (4) That the plaintiff lias suffered damages as follows: Doss of time. 3 days at Ss per day, fl 4s, and damages. £5. Mr A. B. ITaggitt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr H. A. Macdonald for the defendant. Plaintiff gave evidence with regard to arrangements made between himself and the defendant as to the contract for clearing the ground of tussocks. Witness had offered to do the work for 12s an acre. Defendant had said that all the white tussocks were to be left and all the big tussocks (snow tussocks) had to be chopped off. The white tussocks would be burned off and afterwards ploughed in. Witness started on the work two days before the appointed lime, and worked for three days by himself. On the fourth morning witness found another man working on the ground, and so left the job. It was nearly a week later before he was able to see Mr Dyson. The latter wished witness to go on with the work, but witness refused because the contract had been broken. Defendant had said that he thought witness could not do the work in time.

Plaintiff was cross - examined very closely by Mr Macdonald as to the precise locality in which he was to work in accordance with the terms of his contract, and as to the arrangement made by which the area was to be marked off. Mr Macdonald explained that the contract was to clear a certain area to one side of a creek. Defendant had started the plaintiff off, and was to go later to mark out the area. The other man (Phillipson) had been put on to another piece of ground, on the other side of the creek. Richmond had taken the huff. Defendant had refused to pay Richmond until the contract was completed and the ground ready for ploughing. , After evidence had been given by the defendant (Alfred Dyson), and by Jas. Phillipson. the Magistrate dismissed the case, remarking that it was not the sort of action that should be encouraged. Judgment was given for defendant, with Gs court costs, £1 -Is witnesses’ expenses, and £1 Is solicitor’s fee.