AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 117, 31 August 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday,-August 28, 1877. (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M.) CATTLE 'TItESPASS. J. Bunny, W. , Thomas/ IT. H. Fenton, V. Narby," E. C. Latter, D. Lecompte, Thomas Lecompte, Samuel Lee, and Win. Penlington were respectively fined ss. and cests for the , above offence. Civil Cases, gilliatt v. joblin. The Bench stated that since the hearing of this case a survey had been made, whereby it was found that Mr Gilliatt had put his fence in the wrong place, and had actually fenced off a portion of Mr Joblin's land. The former judgment would therefore be reversed, being now given for defendant with costs. MOREY V. DAVIS. Tin's was a claim, for .£lO 165., for breach of contract. The defendant pleaded not indebted. The plaintiff deposed that his claim was for breach of contract, 'first for putting brick piles under building, and secondly for the erection of one double, and one single chimney. He had given Mr Davis a verbal estimate as to cost of the brick piles, and a written estimate for the chimneys, he, the plaintiff, finding material in each case. Defendant accepted the terms, and gave him authority to do the work, in consequence of which he supplied 350 bricks, two loads of sand, and two loads of clay. He then was kept waiting three weeks. Defendant told him one Saturday morning that carpenters were ready to begin on the Monday morning following. It was then arranged that the carpenters should proceed with the work, the framework to be raised on blocks so that the brickwork could be built under, and up to it afterwards. He had set out the chimney sizes, above and below, directly the carpenters commenced work, in order to allow the erection of the framework to be proceeded with. After this he went to Wainui, and on his return, found that wooden piles had been used for the building, and that part of the framework was up. He was away four days. Made no remark at the time, but shortly afterwards saw Mr Checkley building the chimneys, when he spoke to Mr Davis about the matter, and, receiving no redress took the present action. The defendant deposed that he had made a verbal agreement with the plaintiff to build the piles and chimneys. Had urged him repeatedly to commence the work, but each time he had disappointed him. The last time he had pressed him on the matter was on the 24th July, when he asked him to set to work at once if he intended to do it at all. - The plaintiff had then said he was prepared to commence the next morning, but he did not come. Had told him the carpenters were ready for his work. He, the plaintiff, then went to Wainui, staying away about a week without seeing defendant, and, when he returned, expressed surprise at wooden piles having been used, but did Hot offer to commence the chimneys. Had waited eight days since he promised to begin the the work, viz., the 26th July, before putting the job in other hands. After hearing the evidence adduced on both sides, the Bench reserved judgment until Friday, August 31st. The Court then adjourned.