Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON- To day.

(Before Mr H. 0. S. Baddeley, R.M, and Mr D. Thomas, J.P.) DRUNKENNESS. A first offender was fined 61 and costs with the alternative of 24 hours imprisonment. CIVIL OASES. Oorkendale v Cameron, claim L 3 Branson for plaintiff, Mr Wilding for defendant.—The plaintiff sal 4 he had been employed by defendant to do concrete work. Thu defendant saw the work while in progress and when done and raised no objection to it. Before the concrete was dry a post injured the work in some places.—By Mr Wilding: The job was not a good one, but that was nut the fault of witness. Defendant gave witness bags to cover the concrete, and witness followed out his instructions.—Duncan Cameron, the defendant, said the plaintiff came to him and asked for a. job. Gave him the work of concreting on condition that he made a thorough job of it. Plaintiff said there was drnger of frost. Witness told him not to neglect soy precaution, and to cover up the work with bags at night. Witness told plaintiff not to spare bags, and to put on half-a-dozen thicknesses if needful. A few days after the work had been finished witness went over it and found that he could stick his heel through it in several places, and it had remained soft ever since. Witness had suffered loss through the bad nature of the work. Witness supplied the cement and boarded the plaintiff. Through the concrete being defective witness would lose about L 7 or L 8 Witness attributed the bad work through the|plaintiff using sand, and very little gravel. There was no bed in some places for the concrete through gravel not being used.—Counsel having addressed the Court, the Bench said the plaintiff had not proved his case, he should have brought evidence to show that the work was properly done. Plaintiff was nonsuited. McPherson, Filmer and Co. v Hodder, claim L 22 8s 2d. —Mr Wilding for plaintiffs. —Judgment for amount claimed and costs Jones and Bradshaw v Ede, claim L 4 3s Bd, goods by default for the amount claimed and costs. Zander v Thomson, claim Ll 6 14a 7d. — Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Reid and Gray v Sellings, judgment summons L 7 6s 4i —Ordered to be paid on December Ist, in default one months’ imprisonment. The Court then rose.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18851106.2.9

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1319, 6 November 1885, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
401

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1319, 6 November 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1319, 6 November 1885, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert