RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume IV, Issue 1201, 28 November 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., CM.)

JunrjME.vr.s for plaintiffs

S. Cooinbes v. Gco. Turner, claim L 7 4s, goods; J. J Wiseman v. .I. C uiiding—Mr Laishley for plaintiff,—claim L 2 9s, goods; .T. Darby v. Geo. Geeson, sen., claiinLS lGs:; John Sullivan v. W. Deinnan claim, LI 13s 6d. U. W. BINXKY V. J. CRAIG. ■' Claim, £7 10s. This claim arose out of j the sale of a Hue of damaged maize at plaintiff's auction' mart, which plaintiff stated was knocked' down to defendant at 8s Gd per bag, biit which defendant stated was 7s Gd per hag. The particulars of the claim appeared in the Star of Friday last, but judgment was reserved. His Worship, in giving judgment, re-' raarkedthat the testimony on behalf of the" plaintiff was not sufficient to obtaiu a verdict. Mr J. B. Russell said he would take a nonsuit on behalf of his client. Nonsuited. W. SHERSOX V.. PERCIVAL AND JACIOIAJT. f* Claim, £5 19s Id, work done. ', Mr J. B. Eussell for plaintiff, and Mr Laishley for defendant. _ William Sherson deposed that he was a carpenter, and had been employed by defendants. Mr l 3ercival called' upon him at" his shop and wanted to know if he could fix a riddle to his chaff-cutting machine in Durham-street. He replied that he must first see the machine. He went and said that if be could see another as a copy he could do the job. He went according to instructions to* Messrs Morrin's store, where he saw several. He then gaA^e defendants a tender as to prico for the riddle and various alterations re-,. quired, viz., joiner's work, £3 15s; smith's* work, £1 ss, and the riddle, 15s. Thefton-; had five days to consider the tender, which ; was then accepted by Mr Percival. He did the work according to the plan of Burton's, machine. The machine worked well for a; time, until one of the straps broke, when he went and made good the damage ; but that had nothing to do with his contract, and he charged for it accordingly. Everything appeared, satisfactory until he called for liis| money, and then, and not till then, defend-' ants began to grumble, and told him to"call ■ again. They subsequently offered to pay 3t**x. . ■ j

Alexander Tait deposed that he was a,, smith, that he made the iron work for the; machine, also Burton's machine, and that theft machinery was made upon correct principles. , He was not directed by plaintiff in the , matter, but constructed the work on . acknowledged principles. He had had' much experience in machine work. As far as forging was concerned the work was properly done. ... : . I,

To Mr. Laishley: Fe gathered his me-, chanical knowledge chiefly from experience.1 He was not an engineer professionally, but ho had made engines. John Larwell, joiner, deposed that he was a Birmingham man, and had greab experience in machinery. He saw the machine in ■ question several times while Mr Sherson was * repairing it, and it Ayas substantially done. 'l Mr Sherson, he considered, was a first-class mechanic.

To Mr Laishley : Men of Birmingham were scientific mechanics, and usually unexceptionable workmen. Ho considered that Birmingham men were unsurpassed in these respects Mr Laishloy contended that the work was

f badly done—not according to contract, and }--- consequently defendants had boon put to 9 -much extra oxpense. Mr Porcival was examined at great length upon the contract. Mr Masefield deposed that he was sent for to inspect the work and found that the carpenters' work was very well done, but the smiths' work was bad and disproportionate— defective in engineering skill. Caleb, a machinist, gave similar evidence. Mr Laishloy submitted that as his client had been put to great expense in repairing the machine the plaintiff should be nonsuited. Mr Jhissell held a different opinion. Mr Percival had employed a man at a cheap rate to get cheap work. He had run all over the city, to Robson, Revell, and revelled among all the other tinkers of the city, and at last found that he was obliged to go to Mr Masefield, and now souaht to deprive Shersonof his just earnings. His Worship said that the case reminded him of the man who went to the horse doctor instead of the surgeon to get his leg set. He would, however, refer to the authorities quoted by Mr Laishley, and give judgment on Friday next. This was all the business.