MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Waipa Post, Volume V, Issue 238, 15 August 1913, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before Mr E. Rawson, S.M.]

Wednesday, August 13th, 1913A special sitting of the Magistrate's Court was held on Wednesday afternoon, when the adjourned case, Rickit and Sons v. Johns, was concluded. Plaintiff's claimechthe sum of £4 4s 3d, being for timber and a grate, delivered to defendant's.house during course of erection. Mr E. A. Cox appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Johns was represented by Mr Oliphant. Mr Luxford appeared for Thos. Hastings, who was joined as defendant.

Evidence was given by R. I. Fox, who stated he was employed by Hastings in the erection of Johns' house. Being short of timber, he gave an order (produced) to Johns. Shortly after the timber was delivered on the job. F. Turner stated he was working along with Fox when the latter gave the order to Johns. He knew nothing about the kauri or what timber was used in the construction of the house, as he was only on the job during the completion of the work. K. C. Rickit, of ■ the firm of Rickit and Sons, said Mrs Johns called at the shop and picked out a tiled grate, the price of which was £2 ss. He believed . Mrs Johns ordered the grate. C. T. Rickit, senior, partner in the firm of Rickit and Sons, deposed that Johns brought the order for the timber and gave it to him. He also received an order for the grate. Both the timber and the grate were charged to Johns. Witness, continuing, stated that there had been some mistake in regard to mouldings of Johns, which had got mixed up with a truck of witness' timber, and which had been delivered to his yard by his carrier. He had known Johns for a number of years. When witness rendered the .account to Johns, the latter stated there were some items which should have been charged to Hastings At this stage Mr Luxford submitted that there was no case, and that it was established beyond doubt that Johns gave the order to Rickit and must be liable for the goods, and that his client (Hastings) was entitled to a nonsuit, which was granted. Johns Johns, plaintiff, slated he first met Hastings in connection with the building of his (witness') house in December, 1911. He did not give the order for the timber, and knew nothingabout it. Someone asked him to take an order to Rickit for timber, but he said he would not go near him, as he. had had some words aboil* some battens. In regard to the grate, he did not know who ordered it. Mrs Johns ordered a table, but he (witness) had gone to Rickit's shop and given the required length. The reason why he did not go to Rickit was that Hastings agreed to order the timber and charge it to him (witness). Judgment was given for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs £4 18s. In the case Johns v. Hastings, after a consultation between counsel a settlement was arrived at.