RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1078, 19 October 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

SOUTH RAKAIA —Yestkkday. (Before H. C. S. Eaddeley Esq, R.M.) Inder v Healy. Claim, LB.—The value of two greyhounds.—Judgment for the amount claimed and costa 21s. Crawford v Myers. Claim, L2 14a 6d, the value of a coat lent. —Judgment for the amount claimed and costs 12s. Nicholas Walsh was charged with allowing horses to wander at large.—Fined 5a each for four and costs 9s—Ll 9s. ASHBURTON. —To-day. (Before fl. 0. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M.) Compton v. Brown.—ln this case His Worship said:—l have carefully considered the agreement and the evidence in this case, and I feel that the plaintiff was endeavoring to obtain. from the Licensing Committee by virtue of his own good name a license for a house that he never intended to k-ep, and was therefore not acting bond fide, and in short entered into an agreement to perpetrate a fraud on the Committee, the arrangement being without their knowledge or sanction. It is true that it was not all likely that Brown could have got a transfer, as the police report would probably have stopped that, still there is the arrange- 1

ment to in°ke a cat’s-paw of the Licensing Bench, and I cannot allow myself to be made use of to put LIOO into Compton’s pocket under the circumstances The agreement is of a character calculated to evade the provisions of the Licensing Act I think, as there is a dear attempt to obtain a license for a house by putting forward an applicant for such house, and one likely to be accepted too, whoever intended to keep it. The granting of new licenses is a matter in which the public are interested, and I think such an agreement is altogether against public policy. The whole arrangement was, we know, most hurriedly made, and this accounts for thelooseness of it, but still I must give defendant the benefit. In using the word “ fraud” I do so in its legal sense—l mean a legal fraud. Judgement would be for defendant. —Mr Wilding gave notice that he intended to appeal. Crum v. Twomey, claim of L 6 10s.— : Mr Wilding appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Crisp for the defendant. This was a case previously heard and decided in favor of the defendant, and Me Wilding said that evidence had come to his knowledge that showed the previous decision was against the facts. The following evidence was then called :—John Crum said he was a bricklayer of thirty-five years experience. Witness never undertook to build the plaintiff's chimney, and had a

conversation with Hitchens about a chimnoy, but did not know where it was. He told witness it was where a fire had oc-curred.—Cross-examined : Hitchens told him that the chimney was required at the place burnt down about two months previously.—Stephen Crum said that he went to see the defendant when he was told by his brother a job w a “sticking out.” At the time lie saw the building it was timbered in and the roof was on it. Nobody was present at the conversation with Twomey, but a man was at the back of the house. Defendant asked what he Would charge to put up a double chimney, and witness saidjL7 10j. Defendant said that there was some old bricks and a bar to be worked in and witness agreed to allow LI for them, which would reduce the price to ,L 6 JO. Witness said he would start on the following Monday if possible, but did not as a matter of fact start till Tuesday. Found what new bricks were necessary, and purchased them in his own name. Did not sea any carpenters there, but only some men shifting boards. Witness knew Hitchens had the contract, but only because his brother had told him. Twomey said that it would make no odds to witness as witness was to build the chimney Went to defendant on Wednesday, obtained the key of the house and proceeded with the work. Twomey said at the house he would pay witness in the presence of another man. Never received any directions about the chimney from any person but defendant, nor did he know anything about the contract with Hitchens. Der manded payment from Twomey about nine days or a fortnight after the work was completed. After he sent in his bill defendant said he had nothing to do with the chimney, and witness replied that he had done the work and expected payment, but Twomey would not take the bill offered to him. Acting upon legal advice he pushed the bill under defendant’s door, but had not seen the letter till last Friday, excepting on the day after he sent the bill, when Twomey fold witness to send his account to Hitchens, whom he refused to recognise in the matter.—Cross-examined : Went to Twomoy’s place became his br ther told him of the job. After witness had been at work a day or two Hitchens came to continue building the house. Was not aware of what Hitchens’s contract was. Never asked Hitchens upon what terms he was building the house, and know nothing at all about it. Hitchens did read a paper to witness about the contract, and said he had had a “ barney” with Twomey about the work. Mrs Twomey came to look after the work at the house, but defendant was absent most of the time. It was not true that Twomey said he would not pay for the chimney, Had not spoken in the presence of other people about an order for payment on Hitchens. Saw Mrs Twomey when witness went for the key, but she did not tell him defendant would not pay for the chimney. Never asked Hitchens to keep the money for him when witnes went to Methven. At the interview with Twomey in East street, he was told that Hitchens would settle the account. The old bricks used for the chimney were, witness believed, the property Jof Twomey Denied 'that he told Mrs Twomey he had asked Hitchena for the money before he (witness) went to Methven.—James Hitchens gave evidence as to the contract he entered into to build ‘'womey’s house ac-

cording to the specifications produced of which defendant got a copy. Nothing was said of a chimney in that specification. Mrs Toomey wrote out the specifications, and the contraot price was LB3. Had nothing to do with Crum in the matter. Cross-examined: Had never spoken to a man named Stephen Rother about the house. Had never seen Rother about the plan of the house. Did not tell Mrs Twoipey he would do the work L 5 less than any other mao in Ashburton, but did mention LI. Had taken the work too cheap, and could make up an estimate without outside help it he had- time to do it. TVbtney told witness?ho could use the bricks for the chimney. Never asked defendant for the bricks. Only produced

Tucker and Restell’a estimate of the wbrk at the interview in East street with Twomey. Ask d the price of a chimney from John Crum, but simply because Twomey wanted to know. Had done several things in the house which was not mentioned in the specification. It was not agreed that the house should have been completed for a lump sum.—Reexamined ; All the ex ras enquired about were carpenters’ work, except the varnishing. Had asked Orum the price of the chimney because Twomey wanted to know the price of the house.—EJwin Crum, nephew of the plaintiff, remembered an interview between Twomey and the plaintiff last month, when defendant asked what witness’s uncle had been at his place for. Plaintiff presented defendant with the bill, but defendant would not admit his liability, and said that plaintiff would have to summon him for the money.—J. Tucker said that the bill produced was for

timber supplied to Mr Hitchens and placed on I'womey’s section. Gave assistance to Hitchens in making out the estimate for building the hopse. The tirqber witness estimated at L§o, and the account produced was simply for tinjber. Np provision was made for mantelpieces or mouldings. When an architect was employed chimneys are invariably included in a contract, but otherwise, not unfrequently, chimnies are separately arranged for.—Cross-examined ; Estimate supplied by witness's firm only included such things as they sold. Knew nothing of the contract between Hitchens and the defendant. It was not an unusual case for houses to be contracted for for a lump sum of money. —James Taylor said he was en-

gaged in carting the stuff for the chimney in dispute. Was employed by the plaintiff, and looked to him for the money. On arrival at the house saw Twomey and - Hitchens, and the former told him where to put the stuff Cross-examined : All that Twcmey did was to direct witness not to put the stiff near his trees.—J. L. Brown, builder, said that under the document produced he would not build a chimney to a house. —This was the last witness called for the plaintiff.—Mr Crisp then called the following evidence for the defence.'—Stephen Bother, being sworn, deposed that previous to the house being built, Hitchens saw him in regard to the chimney, Hitchens toldjwitneas that he had let the

chimney work to Stephen Oram. Be* lieved that L 7 was the price named for the chimney, but would not swear to this. Was not aware whether Hitchena had seen the plan. The house as built at present was according to the plan of witness. Hitchens got the work, bat witness did not know what was the amount of his tender.—Cross-examined : Witness had put in a tender for the work, and that was why he had made an estimate. Hitchens had shown him a . stamped paper to prove that he was the sue-.. cessful tenderer. The words Hitchens used were “ I’ve -let - the chimney .work to Crum." Could not remember tny, other part of the conversation. Was by trade a fitter, but had not done any work for three months. Mrs Twomey, being sworn, said she was present when the contract was made between Hitchens and defendant. Hitchens saw Bother's plan before the specification was signed and it included a chimney. Hitchens said that the timber would costL64, ■; painting Lll, and chimney L 7 10a, and that ha would only have L2 left for his family. Advised defendant not to give the house to plaintiff. When Crum ~ coma for the key defendant refused to give it to him until the plaintiff satd> hewas sent by Hitchens. The bricks and mortar were on the ground before Hitchens left. Witness had suggested to. , Crum that he should obtain an order from Hitchens upon Twomey. Before going to Methven Crum said that he wouldr leave the money due to him in the hands of Hitchens. Cross-examined ;At the time the contract was signed, Hitchens promised to include the chimney in the LB3. Patrick Twomey said . that he showed Ho’.her’s plan to Hitchens, which included the chimney. Let 5 the jeb to -Hitchens privately, because he said he would do tha work ,L 5 cheaper, , than any uuu in Vshburton. Never employed a man callei “Bricky ’’ to do any work for him. Believed that “ Bricky ” had worked for Hitchens, but had been discharged. Hitchens went on a drunken * spree, and witness warned him that if the work was not completed he would employ Crum at his (Hitchens's) expense. Remembered an interview in East street, at which Leahy, Ryan and Hitchens were present. Hitchens produced a paper oh which the timber of the house was shown/ The price on the paper was L 53, and Hitchens said he would not make day out of it, (Lefc sitting.)