MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1302, 30 July 1886, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON—TO- D A Y.

[Before Mr H, 0. S. Baddeley, R ,M, CIVIL CASKS.

Steele r Lake and Brans, claim £6 10s lid (for work performed and goods supplied In connection with erection of sheep dip). Mr Wilding for tho plaintiff; Mr Lake for the defendants.—Mr A. E. Focks, architect, stated that he bad employed the plaintiff on account of the defendants to perform the work

specified in the bill of particulars He had issued the certificate produced on the completion of the contract. To Mr Lake—Witness had not heard Lake in struct Nelson to do the work. Lake had authorised witness to have the work done without any restrictions as to the contractor to ba employed: Ntlson had the contract for erecting the sheep dip, but tho plaintiff was employed to do extra work.—To the Bench : Witness followed the usual practice of architects . ia the matter.—W. Lake, one of the defendants, said the goods charged to his firm by plaintiff were really supylied to Nelson, who was liable for tho completion of the contract referred to by tho previous witness, —J. JR. Steele, the plaintiff, said the goods claimed for had been ordered the goods had not been delivered to Nelson, by Fooka. He would not swear thatsome of It so delivered the we e on account of

the defendant,—This concluded the evidence, and the Magistrate said ho did not see his way to give judgment, on the evidence adduced, against the defendants.—Mr Wilding was surprised to hear this expression of opinion from the Bench, and asked that the case might bo adjourned to secure the attendance of Nelson.—Nelson immediately after appeared in Court, and, on being sworn, said the goods referred to in tho bill of particulars had nothing to do with bis Contract with defendants. Witness was not liable for the amount, but promised that if (payment were made to him he would hand the amount to plaintiff —The Magistrate said the evidence of Nelson placed the matter in a very different light, and judgement would bo for the defendant, With costs. Gtiardian Company v Sports Ground Company, claim £lllos 3d. Mr Parnell for the plaintiff; Mr Crisp for the defendant, Adjourned, on the application of the defendant; for a fortnight.

Mitchell and Turner v. Wolf— r laim, 11a 6d, Judgment for Is 6d and costs Daniel v. McKenzie.—Claim, £7 13s Judgment summons. Mr Cay gill for the judgment creditor. An order was made that the defendant shou’d pay 4s a week Zeuch and Macpherson v. Cockle.— Claim, 10s lid. Mr Cuthberlson for plaintiffs. Judgment for amount claimed and costs

Young v, Sawtell.-—Claim, £5 14s fid Mr Cuthberlson for piuintiT, Mr Cbygl'l for defendant This was a claim i> t damages alleged to have been caused to property rented from the plaintiff by defendant. The amount of 2s C l had been paid into Court —Andrew Young, the plaintiff, said be leased a property on the Wakanui road to the defendant in August last. There was a clause in the agreement that the lessee should keep the property in repair. About a month ago t! e defendant left the property. Pievious to that witness examined the property, and found the trees and fences broken. Witness estimated the damage at £5, and ho applid for -payment. The kitchen range was considerably damaged. I’ho defendart promised to get a bri klayer to repair the range. He' got a bricklayer, but witness paid the bill, which amounted to 14s cd —By Mr Caygill : 12a of the amount was for fire tiles, lut witness had no authority from Sawtell to order the fire tiles, and Sawtell objected to pay the amount—W. H. Zouch said that, acting under instructions from the plain, tiffs he went to the garden of the property lately occupied by the defendant. He estimated the dama>e the garden hal sustained at £5. —By Mr t aygill : The plaintiff told witness that if the defendan’ surrendered his lease amicably there would be no further trouble about the damage done. The lease was surrendered subsequently.—This was the care for the plaintiff, and Mr Caygill called the defendant H. V. Sawtell, who stated with reference to the damage that he had undertaken to repair the damper of the range. The cost of the repairs was 2s 6d, which had been paid into Court. He had giyen no authority for the firebricks to be put in, because, with the exception of the damper, no damage whatever bad been sustained by the range. Witness had never received any account from Mr Young for the damage to the trees. Oply one had been damaged. The injury to the fence was caused by the neighbors’ children. —The witness was cross-examined by Mr Cuthberlson at some length.—Mr Caygill submitted that on the evidence of Mr Zouch, judgment must be given for the defendant —Mr Cuthberlson replied. —The Magistrate, after referring to the salient points of the case, gave judgment for the amount paid into Court, the plaintiff to paj costa. [ Left sitting.]