RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XVII, Issue 5142, 10 July 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M.) CIVIL SIDE.

Fleming v. Sly.—Claim for rates due to the Borough Council, 19s 6d.—Mr Miller for plaintiff.—Defendant contended that he was not liable for the amount, as he had sold the bouse eighteen months ago, bat had omitted to give notice to the Borough authorities that he bad ceased to own the premises, as he was not aware it was necessary to do so. The rates sued for were for t^o years.—Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with 13s costs.

Same v. Ladner.—Claim, £1 9s 6d, for rates. —Defendant admitted the liability, but said he was unable to pay.—Judgment for amtunt claimed, and costs Bs.

Same v. Adlam.—Claim, £1 11s Bd, rate 3 Miller appeared for plaintiff. —There was no appearance of defendant. ■—Judgment for amount claimed, and costs Bs.

C. D. Wright v. Thames County Counoil-— Claim, £13 13a, wages. This case was adjourned from last Court day.—Mr Lush appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Miller for defendant.—C. D. Wright, sworn, stated—He had a farm at the Waikawau, which was approached from the Waiotahi Creek. The road was in a bad state in March, 1884, and saw Mr Ait ken (County Engineer) about it. Mr Dean was with him at the time, and asked the County Engineer to put a man on for a month or two to repair it. Mr Aitken asked witness if be could do the work, and he replied in the affirmative, saying that it was work that could be better done by two men. Mr Aitken said he did not care whether two men were employed, so long as the work did not occupy more than a month, and to come and see him again at the end of the month. Two of them then went to work in March for 6| days each, which be put down as 13 days ; also did work equal to 26 days in April. Another man worked one or two days in place of his (witness 1) brother. Saw Mr Aitken again in May, when Mr Dean was again present at witness' request. Mr Dean asked if witness could not go on for another month, and the Engineer said the Council were short of funds, but they could work for another month. Worked the whole of May, and at the beginning of June met Mr Dean in Mary street; after a conversation they went together to the Council. Mr Aitken asked how much longer it would take to put the road in a thorough state of repair, and said that though the Council were short of funds, witness could go on with the work till the end of June. As the weather was wet only did equal to about 8 days in July. Kept a careful account of the number of days they were employed. Had received £18 4s towards the work done; £13 13s still remained unpaid. Saw Mr Aitken at the County offices about -three months ago, who said- the work had not been authorised by the Council, and be could not get any more money for him until more work had been done on the road. Mr Aitken said that if he (witness) sued for the money, he would not get it. This was the first time the claim had been repudiated.—To Mr Miller : On the first occasion he saw Mr Ailken, nothing was said about wages. Commenced work on the 18th or 19th of March ; did not work by himself during that month. Bad paid a man named Patterson £8 8s for work done, at 8s per day. Some work had been done on the gum track for him, but he (witness) did not charge the Council for this. At the end of each month, told Mr Aitken the number of days he had worked, which he made a note of.—F. C. Dean corroborated the evidence of last witness. —Walter Wright, a brother of plaintiff, gave evidence regarding the details of the work. —This closed the case for the plaintiff.— For the defence, Alex. Aitken deposedSaw Mr Dean with reference to some work to be done by Wright. Mr Dean spoke of putting some men on the road in question for two or three months, which witness told him it was impossible to do for that time. Eventually told him to put plaintiff on for a month. Did not recollect giving any other authority. Something was said at the time that he would put Wright on and chance it. Plaintiff never put in an account showing the number oi days on which work had been done; he only put in the total. Had told Wright that be would endeavor to get the balance of the money due to him, though he then thought the work had been done. Had not inspected the work. From inquiries made recently as to the amount of work done, he considered plaintifi had been amply paid. Did not authorise such a large amount of work being done. —To Mr Lush : Plaintiff had previously done work for the Council at Waiwawa. Did not recollect having had a conversation with plaintiff and Mr Dean in the County offices. Had not told plaintiff, that the work had been improperly done. Did not recollect either plaintiff or Mr Dean coming to him at the end of each month. Plaintiff had written to him once or twice for the money.—E. W. Hollis, County Clerk, deposed : Plaintiff had applied to him, asking if his name was on the pay-sheet for £13 13s. Witness replied that it was not. Asked plaintiff if the work had been done, and on his replying in the affirmative, witness told him to see the Surveyor. —James Patterson stated—Could not swear that he had been paid by Wright for work done on the road referred to during the month of March. A fortnight's work could not have been done on the road without witness noticing it. Went to work for plaintiff about the 18th April, and worked on the road 6| days. In April plaintiff and his brother worked four days. Did not see any further work done that month. Again resumed work on the 19th July. Work had been done on the road between the two periods.—To the Bench : Was gum digging in March for about a fortnight, and had to pass over the road. Thought one man could not do the work done by plaintiff in two months, though could not form an estimate as to how long it would, take.— T. Crosbie, sworn, deposed—He resided on one of the homestead settlements at the head of the Waiotahi. Knew the road iv question, and sometimes passed down it two or three times a week. Had only seen plaintiff and bis brother working on the road once. There had been very little work done on the road near his place. Some work had been done on the road above bis house. Plaintiff bad often asaiited him in packing sum.—David

Mackay, ssvorn, stated—Had been at the sittlernent between the 3rd and 26th June, but did not see any work being done on the road then, though some had been done on it recently. — The Bench said there- could be no doubt that the work had been authorised to the extent done; and it should have been checked within a limited period after it had been done. Witnesses had shown that the amount of work could not be done in two months. Judgment" would be given for the amount claimed, £13135, and costs, £4. This concluded the business.