OPUNAKE COURT

Taranaki Daily News, 21 June 1935, Page 14

OPUNAKE COURT

JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CLAIMS. V DISPUTE OVER PLUMBING WORK. Judgment by default was given by Mr. W. H. Woodward, SM., in the Opunake Magistrate’s Court yesterday in the following claim: T. N. Watt v. A. E. Magon, £2 Ils (costs £1 7s 6d). On a iudgment summons C. Markham was ordered to pay L. R. Curtis £5 16s 6d and 15s 6d costs, in default six days’ imprisonment. An Opunake plumber, W. Fawcett (Mr. J. Foy) claimed from F. W. Vare (Mr. C. H. Croker) £5 4s for work done on a property at Te Kiri owned by defendant. The case was heard in the Opunake Magistrate’s Court yesterday and rested on the question whether Fawcett could prove the agency of one Emeny to act on behalf of Vare and give authority for the work. After hearing argument Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., non-suited Fawcett on his claim, except for portion amounting to £1 7s and costs 18s, for which he gave judgment. Henry Wiggins, farmer, said he m- c spected a property at Te Kiri • in 1933 for the purpose of taking a lease and Vare, the owner, agreed to carry out certain improvements to the house which were pointed out. Emeny was to get the work done and the latter instructed Fawcett to do the work. Fawcett carried.. out certain repairs to the roof. The repairs were done after July 1 when Wiggins obtained possession. There was a clause in the lease which provided, that the property should be kept in repair by Wiggins. Vare had never given Wiggins any authority to expend money on his behalf. Walter Fawcett, plumber, said he was instructed by Emeny to do the work of repairing the ram and pipes which was done in September. The account was. sent to Emeny, who told him to send it to Vare. Wiggins later asked him to repair the heater but this was not worth repairing. , ' , Dealing with Mr. Crokers request for a non-suit, the magistrate said there was only a general statement regarding authority for the improvements) Vare. had said to leave the matter in Wiggins hands and in pursuance of that direction the chip-heater was taken out. The account claimed for a number of. things for which there was no evidence in support except in respect to the waterheater. It seemed there might be a case against Vare for the removal of the heat-cr. Mr. Croker contended that Wiggins was under a lease which provided that he was to keep the property in repair. The work was done months after he was in possession and had been done for Emeny, the account being made out in his name and sent to him. Emeny denied responsibility and the account was then made out to' Vare, who also repudiated responsibility. If the work was left in Wiggins’ hands it was for him to do it under his lease, whatever the arrangements made prior to going in. Wiggins might have a claim against Vare but Fawcett should have sued Emeny who could have joined Vare as co-defendant. Because they had made a mistake the court should not give judgment on an illegal claim. The whole burden of the plaint was that Emeny gave instructions and not Wiggins. Mr. Foy submitted that letters from Vare confirmed an agency giving author-' ity for the work on his behalf. Vare did not repudiate the work but merely expressed surprise that the heater had got into bad repair as it was only 18 months old.'

Mr. Woodward considered there was authority from Vare delegated to Emeny to allow Wiggins to have the chip-heater removed and the hole in the roof closed. This was the only portion of the claim he could 'allow and if this sum were specified he would give judgment for the amount.