DISTRICT COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 3267, 17 March 1885, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMARU — Monday, Mabch 16th. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) After some argument it was decided to j take the bankruptcy cases first, the civil case , Noble v. Jeffreys next, the case Colonial t Bank v. Timaru Fish Company, at 10.30 next j morning, and place the two appeal cases ) Burton v. Aspinall, and Carmichael v. same, 3 at the bottom of the list. > IK BANKRUPTCY. i The public examination of the following 7 bankrupts was declared closed : — W. B. 6 Kindley (Mr Ortnsby), P. McAteer (Mr 5 Hamersley), Wm. Taggart (Mr Knubley), D. 5 White?* (Mr Ham ere'ey), H. Hodgson (Mr 3 In the case of Wm. Taggart, Mr White 13 appeared for the Offioial Assignee 5 m the ,3 other cases Mr Knubley appeared. 8 White) was adjourned to next Court day, on 8 the apphcation of Mr Knubley, for tie .7 Official Assignee. )r Orders of discharge were granted as fol- ° !? w »--; To James Watkins (& Hamersley), ,r John Woodhead (Mr White), 2 11 Taylor Mr Oraiiby). The ord« of sis

, I charge applied for by Mr Hamersley on behalf of M. Wightman was adjourned. Mr Ormßby applied for costß out of the estate of Stephen Taylor. — Application granted. CIVIL CASE. F. J. Noble v. W. Jeffreys. Claim £110 3a 7d for work and labor done. Mr A. St. G-. Hamersley for plaintiff ; Mr J. W. White (of Messrs White, Smithson and Raymond) for defendants. Defendant filed a set-off of £93 6s lid. After plaintiff's counsel had shortly stated the case, the following witnesses were called : F. J. Noble Baid he had premises m the North Road m May 1884, and made an arrangement with defendant to do certain work m connection with a contract he had : with Roberts' Patent Sanitary Process Company. (Letter produced from Company to Jeffreys setting forth the contract on which arrangements were made.) ■ Witness was to do the engineering work connected with the contract which was for the making of a paper mill plant, — supply working drawings and superintend things generally. His wages were to be 2s an hour, the labor of a boy to be included m that sum. The particulars of claim showed how many hours he had worker), and also that ho had supplied defendant with certain ironwork and timber. The machinery and tools uaed m the contract belonged to R. Stansell, and a certain agreement was mode by Jeffreys with Stansell for the use of them. The reason why witness charged plaintiff rent m the particulars was because he (witness) did certain work for Stansell. i his work Stansell gave him receipts for (produced) as on account of rent, and he then charged Jeffreys for rent instead of Stansell doing to. Jeffreys could not have carried out his contract without the use of the machinery, tools, etc., m Stansell's shop. To Mr White : I did not rent the shop from Stansell. This document (produced) leasing the shop to mo for three months at £4 odd per week I gave to Jeffreys two days after I filed. I did not at the time notice it was m my name. I was then acting on behalf of Jeffreys. At the time I gave Stansell a bill of sale I was paying him for rent £3 lls per week ; soon after this he raised the rent to £4 odd. Jeffreys paid the rent whilst I was going through the Court. Mr White now took each item m the bill of particulars, and questioned witness very closely on most of them. Discussing the item charged for labor which witness m the first account sent m set down at 3s per hour, and m the one he was now suing on, 2s, witness explained that the 3s was to give defendant an idea of what was charged for material. The first account did not contain bo many items as the present one, as defendant raised some objections to certain items. The charges made for fitting, etc., were fair and reasonable. He admitted that one item of £60 had been Bet down m mistake twice m the account. The charges made for visits to Ohristchurch for the purpose of fitting up the machinery were reasonable. He had gone xip to do the work at the request of the defendant. The £50 included m the set-off he never owed to defendant. He had given him an accommodation note for £50, but as it was just as he was about filing, he told defendant it was worth nothing. He was not m defendant's debt at the time he gave him the note. He and Jeffreys had fitted up Allen's mill at Fairlie Creek, and when they squared up £160 was due to Jeffreys. The latter had been working for wages for witness before this contract was entered on, and was always paid m cash. Ho had renewed a bill for £50 two or three times for Jeffreys, just to accommodate him. Witness was anxious to work on the paper mill contract, as it was the first of the kind m Canterbury. It was not to make work at his shop appear to be brisk, as he was negotiating about a partner that made him press defendant to take the contract. Be explained to defendant his position at the time, and said if he could get a partner it might render his filing unnecessary. There was no one present when he made arrangements with defendant about the note, nov was there anything said about defendant's receiving 12s a day while the contract was m hand. Whilst engaged on the contract he was also making some machinery for Stansell, and the labor used on it was allowed for m defendant's accounts. To Mr Hamersley witness said he had paid the £150 from Allen's contract to defendent. Knud Sando said : I remember the paper machine made by Noble and Jeffreys. I saw Jeffreys about taking the contract, and he asked me to advance money to him to carry it out. He wanted £80 at.first, and then I was to advance money as he wanted it. I agreed to advance him money on his bill if he could carry out the contract properly. From my conversation with him, I understood that Stansell had agreed to let him have the use of the premises, then hold by Noble, at a certain rent. Jeffreys did not mention the agreement between himself and Noble, except that Noble would see the work carried out properly. To Mr White : Noble introduced Jeffreys to me, and said he (Jeffreys) was the party that took the contract. I kept Noble's books and knew m what circumstances he was. John Barrie, a carpenter, deposed :' I was working at the paper machine m the employ of Jeffreys. I know what timber and material were used, but could not say what it would cost. Noble was working at different parts of the machinery, ond instructing me how to make the patterns. I don't think any of the men on the job knew how to make the machino without instructions from Noble. I was making patterns for Noble, for a wire strainer and cutter part of the time. I was paid by Jeffreys for work on the machine. Red pine was not so good as teak for the press, but it was used when teak could not be got. I think teak is the best wood that can be got for such a purpose. James Robertson, a practical engineer, was then called as an expert, and said : I saw the machine made by Noble once or twice whilat it was being made, but I don't know what material was used. I consider the charges m the account (produced) reasonable enough for the class of work done. Two shillings per hour is a reasonable charge for a man n charge of such a job. I reckon that the beating machine made by Noble is worth quite £100. To Mr White : If Timaru had been turning out such machines about once a month for the lost three or four years they would hardly be fair charges, but as such a machine was a novelty m Timaru , I considor' the charges reasonable. Some of the items m the account are vague ; I should not know what they were for. Re-examined by Sir Hamersley : I should charge 4J per cent on the contract price for supplying working drawings. Robt. Stansell, sworn, deposed : I made some arrangements with Noble about occupying bis premises. When Jeffreys entered into the contract I lent him the machinery at a rental of £4 lls per week. To His Honor : The machine was for making paper out of tussocks. To Mr White: Shortly before Noble's bankruptcy he gave me a bill of sale over his plant. I did not charge rent for the premises till the contract was entered into, when I gave Jeffreys a guarantee that he should have undisturbed possession of them for nine weeks. The Chri«tchurch firm for whom the machine was made would not let Noble or Jeffreys take up the contract until I gave a guarantee that they should have the use of the machinery on the premises to carry it out properly. This concluded the case for the plnintiff. After considerable argument as to some items for wages, Mr White asked that the caso be adjourned to allow him to put m amended pleas. The case was accordingly adjourned till the next ordinary Bitting of the Court (16th April), £1 Is being allowed to the plaintiff's solicitor, and the costs of such witnesses as it may be necessary to call. The Court then adjourned till 10.30 this morning.