MAGISTERIAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume L, Issue 4819, 16 April 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAKU-TcESDAr, April 15th. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M) ArBIXIATIOK CASE. Charituble Aid Board t. Kennedy.— Hts Worship gave judgment in this caso. Aftor reviewing the evidenca ho concluded that it was not such as to enable him to say who was Uio father of tbe child, acid tba complaint .must be diseased. CIVIL CASES. Davies and Murphy r. T. Beal cleSm £2 16« 4d, judgment summons. Mr White for plaintiffs. Defendant did not appear, and one of the plaintiffs showed that defendant had been in constant work and had received a cheque for £22einco tbe judgment was obtained. Defendant to pay forthwith ;in default seven day>' imprisonment. Samo v. F. Beisell, claim £11 1> 7d ; defendant to pay Judgment by default was given in tho following cases : — Gracift, Maclean and Co. v. P. Collins, 234 lOj, costs £3 15 ; sumo v. T. Powell, claim liA, 12i 6d. costs 7« ; J. Jackson y. W. d. Baker, eloim £13 Bs, costs, £2 15b. 0. Brader v. E. P. Burbury, claim £24. Vrflay for plaintiff, Mr 0. Perry for fends.i*PlaioA'ff, manager of the Washdyke Sale yards, Wai' aeked by dofondant in August last to prepare working pinna and *pccification» for eo!eyard», buildings, nnd sheop dip at O.imaru, and he did to. He sent in bin account in Novomber and again in January, when ho wa» told tbfl company (tf.Zh. and M.A. C0.,) of «fliiohdof/!Ddaßtij Oaniaru mnnugor, liad decided not. to go on willi Ilio work. PlDintiff claimed 2i por cent on tho controct price, or failing a contract or. oetinntnc] cost. CFba defendant ddmiirrod Uiilio amount of the claim, r.nd olfcrud £5, whicli hud bseu paid into court. Plaintiff in ()i» ovideneo oaid defendant J'/ola-d at the Waslidyko yards, and told him that eort of thiDg was whst they wanted.

f Defendant, told bun he wanted working pinna t so that tho work could be gono on with, and e he would pay what was fair for them. Specifications wero not mentioned but working j plans wero mcless without specification?. Ho I did not know then that Mr Burbury was a manager of tho company. (Bundle of plan?, copy of specifications, and estimate, produced. ) Tho estimate waa £960. Mr Guinness told him otter sending in tho second account, that they had decided not to carry out tho wotk, and he " supposed there was nothing in it." Understood him to mean that tbe plans would uot be paid for. ToW him that the work had besn dono and must [ bo paid for. Mr Guinness suggested that , he (plaintiff) should charge for the time he , had speut upon tho plans. Met Mr Guinness I lator and told him ho could not arrange it that way. Fixed tho charge at 2J par cent, ', because ho had bean paid that rate by tho South Canterbury company for similar work and becauao it waa tho usual charge for such work. To Mr Perry : Had rover been ia business as on architect, but had been a ctirpenter eleven veuro, and hud had to do with the ereclionof yards. Thcso woro tho first plans he had prepared for yards. (Mr Perry criticised tho plans, inquiring how a contractor could work from them, as the dimensions wero not marked.) Tho yards woro almost fas similes of those at tha Washdyke, with ono or two small modifications. Mr Burburv did not eay anything ahout trying to form u company at Oamaru, and ask for a rough plan to lny before a meeting, nor did ho name any maximum cost for tho construction. After the accounts had beon snnfc Mr Guinness toid him ho could have the plans back, and said all they wanted was a i - ough plan. Ho did not mention any company, nor .offer £5, nor any other stated sum. D. West, architect, eaid the piano and specifications could be worked from. All tho figures required wero in tho specifications. In tho absence of special agreement (he usual charge for clans and specification?, whothor tho work is carried out or not, is 2 V per cent; preparing plaus for yards would be rathor out of an architect's lino. £o Mr Perry : One could not work from tho plans ulone, as the dimensions were not given, all that was wanting was measurement figures. H. Hoivoy aud J. McK. Thompson, builders, were called forplaititiff to say that tbe plans and specifications were quita sufficient for a contractor to work from. This closed the plaintiff's case aud tho court adjotirnod for lunch. On the court resuming Mr Perry eho'llv stated the facts for the defence. Mr Burbury and Mr Guinaeis had seen tha plaintiff at tho Washdyko Yards, and at the instigation of Mr Guinness, tho plaintiff was requested to make a sketch plan of the yards for Mr Burbury to lay before a proposed company. All that was asked for and wanted was o sketch and rough plan of the yardsnothing elaborate was wanted. He then called E. R. Guinness, diroctor of the Wa»hdyke Saleyards Company, who aaid that ho knew tho parties to ths Buit. Mr Burbury had spoken to him about forming n company in Oamaru, and together they visited the Wa?hdvke yards. Saw the plaintiff, nnd after explaining their errand, suggested to him that ho should make a rough plan of the yards for Mr Burbury. Had not givon plaintiff to understand that proper plans were required — merely something for Mr Burbury to go upon. After a timo witness had an account sent to him from Oamaru, and he saw the plaintiff and offorcd him £5 in settlement, he to have the plans, etc , back. Had toid him that the charges were unreasonable. To Mr Hay : I said that tho plans wore wanted to lay before some people who proposed to form a company. I do not remember bllicg him that the plans wore to lot a contract by. The plans show all that wo required, but are too elaborate ; we Bimply wanted rough plans to give an idea of the work. I offered £5 in settlement with tho option of full payment if tbo work want on. No specifications wore wanted- merely cobl of work. E. P. Burbury gave corroborative evidence. He was quite clear that a rough plan only was required for the purpoao of laying before n meeting of farmers as told tho plaintiff by Mr Guinness. The plans came quickly to hand, but witness never used them at all I'he scheme that he had foil through. Did nut remember getting tho firat account, bat on getting the " account rendered" wai very much astonished at the amount. Left the arrangement of the account to Mr Quinncss, and sent tho plans and specifications back to the plaintiff. To Mr Hay: Did not mean that tho present plans were not. enough to work by. I am not an expert. I did not tell tbo plaintiff to prepare anything. Mr Guinness suggested that a rough plan be prepared. All I eimply wonted was such a sketch as would give persons an idea of the yards. I did not expect the pluns hs sent, but am quito willing that he should be paid for bi3 actual time — as I think ho exceeded instructions. I distinctly told him that I did not want any. specification, but that he was at liberty to name any improvements.

F. W. Murcbant was called aa ira expert. He would charge £5 5s for survey of the yards and making a plan. Tho great demerit of the plan produced was that it was not according to scale, and by it only the external parta could bo put in.

To Mr Hay : The survey would Bhow the whole site, and bo merely a ground plan. Those produced wera working or contract plans, and he should certainly charge 2^ per cent on them. Taken with tho specifications the plans were fnirly workable. A ground Dion would be nil that promoters o£ a company would want. His Worship gave judgment for £<?, allowing £1 for oxtra work ; costa £2 3s were allowed but not solicitors fen. TEMUKA— Mo.vday, 14th April. (Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., E.M.) George Collins and Tamo Wako (o native) two boys, were charged with fighting in a public placo on tbo Gth inafc. Defendants pleaded guilty. Constables Morton and Kgan stated that the two boys were constantly about tho town in tho evening, and that Collins especially was a ringleader in fighting and causing disturbance and annoyanon. Collina when arrested bod been locked op for two howra, and then bailod out by his uncle, W. H. Williams. Wakft had been locked np all night. His Worship said tlmt it was sad to see boys running wild and becoming a miisance to tho community. Ho impressed upon their unclca, who wero present in court, the necessity for kooping them under proper control and preventing their running wild in tho streets. A fine of Gs each was infliuted, nnd Hia Worship oxpressod a hope that t.fec amount would he paid by tho boys thomselvcs and not by their relatives, as in that caso it would mako a moro lasting improssion upon them. Edward Pilbrow, clerk to tho Tetnuka Town Board T. D. Charteris, who was charged with having two unregistered dogs in his possession. Tho defendant did not appear, nnd tho informant stated that ono dog had been rogisterod by another person just beforo tho information won Inid, but that ho (tho witness) was unawft'O it was tho samo dog. Tho other dog had boon roghtorod Bineo tho information was laid. — Defendant was flnod 10a.

Hume v. A. W. Gaze, who was charged with having three unregistered doga. Tho defendant stntod that since the information had been hid two of tho doga h'id been registered. The third dog had beon givon away u considerable time before — Dofondant was finod lOj each for the two dog«. Haino v. ,T. .T. Heap, charged with having two unregistered dogs. , The defendant admitted the owncrthip of ono dog, bat stated that the other had died fiTo monl'ns previously. In reply toijueßtions he admitted that thoro had been a pup about s*i» premises, but that it had boon given away. — l)of«ndnnt was fined 10s.

ll.Smallrid(;3 ■«<&» fined 10s for having ono dog unregistered. It. Hoborts, charged with having two dogs unregistered, ptatod thnl )io hud only hud 0110 doe for some time prnviou.i to !,ho date of Ilio information, that ho hnd rngiptcrcd it whon 1,0 received iho suimiioiia, and that ho Iwut Wn told by Air Pi 1 brow lli.it " tlicro would 1)0 n(it|)it)i; further about it." This was dixtitd, mid lbs defendant citllod Constable

Morton who proved that Mr Pilbrow had requested him to withdraw the informatioi.B ugainsi Koberts, Chartoris, and Smallbridgi!, but that he had not done ' so as he had nu power in the matter. Anno Johnston v. Kdward Savago ; claim 30s for services as nurse. — Judgment by default for tho amount claimed and costs, 7a. O. O. Mathews v. E\ Qlaeson ; claim, £4 4* for services of horse. — Judgment by dofault for tho amount claimed and costs. J. S. Hayes v. E. Fenton ; claim, £143?. £7 had been paid into court, and on the application of Mr Salinond tho case waa adjourred for a week as tho dofondant was unable to appear. Tho oourt then rose.