TAURANGA R.M. COURT

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume II, Issue 185, 13 June 1874, Page 3

TAURANGA R.M. COURT

Wkhxjssday, Junk 10. (Before Major Robert?, K. M ) Civil. Side. SASBKRB V. BAiU’EI.S AND OBSV. The Court deferred judgment in this case until Wednesday next, at ten o’cloek. THOMAS WHIG LEV V. HAWK. Claim i. 12 <s, for goods sold and delivered. Mr Bradley appeared as agent for the defendant, lie acknowledged the debt on behalf of Mr Havre, but asked for time, 1 Tiie plaintiff stated that the goods had been purchased nine months ago, and the greater portion of them, ho believed, sold by defendant, who was a storekeeper at Obinemutu * Judgment for full amount claimed and costs, to bo paid into Court within a fortnight. l-OFI'LKY V. KOBEKTBON. Claim—“to money received for horse hire from Mr C. O. Havis, TO os ; seizure of horse under protest when claimed, £lO " £l9 ss. The defendant asked for an adjournment of the case in order to procure the attendance of a necessary witness living in the Thames district. He (defendant) would bo able to obtain the attendance of the witness iu question in about two months.

Plaintiff stated that ho had come from Taupo purposely attend the Court, and would bo detained in tauranga at considerable expense. His Worship decided to proceed with tho bearing forthwith.

Defendant then asked permission for his wife to conduct the ease.

The request was granted, asd the following evidence adduced : JLdward Lollley deposed ; Mr Robertson, received £0 os from Mr O O. Davis for horse hire, the said horse being iu dispute between me and defendant at tbo time ; Mr Robertson on the 12th Maj last took away a horse belonging to me, under protest at the time ; I summoned him at Tapuhararu, and obtained a verdict to the effect that the horse belonged to me. By Mrs Robertson : Robertson took the horse away on the 7th May : X protested against your husband taking away the horse iu the presence of Captain Gascoigne , 1 gave no written protest; I don t know whether Robertson showed Captain Gascoigne a receipt for the horse or not; X believe ha did ; I don’t know whether Captain Gascoigne sent a Constabulary man with Roberson to obtain his property ; Delaney told me that Robertson had claimed my horse ; 1 did refuse to grant maintenance to Robertson at Taupe until the Court day arrived ; Captain Gascoigne and the borgeant-Major gave Robertson permission to take the horse under protest from no© ; I can prove by witnesses that the horse was delivered to Robertson under protest by me. At this of the proceedings the Court adjourned the case for a month, end recommended prepared with witnesses upon TE IT AP V T. BABXi. Claim £l, for work done and labour performed. Mr Warbriok acted as interpreter. This case was a disputed one, and of no pubic interest whatever. Judgment for plaintiff. COJMS JiTT' V. IK (<3 lITOS. Claim and breakage of one pane, £L 3s 6d ; loss sustained in haring to keep window closed from May sth to 20th, 5s per diem, £3 15s "—£4 IBs 6d. The defendant pleaded not indebted, and took objection to the summons, as he had not previously received any bill for the amount sued for, Thomas - Corbett deposed: 1 am a draper, residing at Tauranga; some months ago I employed the defendant to ‘‘set” a window for mo ; the sash came from Auckland ; this work was to be done at wages of lls per day ; during the time he was doing the work defendant asked me the price I was charged per foot for the sash and glass; I replied, Is 6d per foot ; ho said that he could make it for the same money, and that it would be cheaper to me, as he would £ ‘ take oat” the greater portion in goods ; the defendant after - wards took a contract from mo to put in and supply another sash window complete at the same price 1 obtained the former one from Auckland ; X agreed to allow defendant an addition, of 7s 6d for freight, also Oliver’s charge of 8s for glazing sash ; defendant wrote out an order for me to procure glass from Auckland, for which I paid on account of the contract; bo put in the sash, but he cut the glass mnoh too small ; defendant told Mrs Corbett that he would allow 5j for glazing again, as he had no time to do it himself; I declined the offer ; all I wanted was the work to be secure from wind and weather ; 1 produce copies of letters about the work I sent to Mr Ijeighton, giving him notice that unless he completed his contract properly I should be compelled to call in another person to do so ; after waiting for Mr Beighton’s reply I called in Mr Oliver, who glazed the sash, and I paid him lls 6d for so doing ; defendant refused to re-pay me this amount.

By defendant; Mr Oliver glazed the first window ; he broke the corners of two panes, but not of any consequence ; you glazed the sash on the 14th May ; Butler put up the fittings in the window ; the glass is Chance’s IGoz. quality ; I do not think the glass could have been shook out of their place by the hammering in erecting those fittings ; I complained to you when you completed the work, and you came again to put it right ; your account was nearly settled before the work was completed—l9s were due to jou at the completion ; I did not say that I required the whole amount claimed to settle the affair.

John Oliver stated : I am a plumber and tinsmith, at Tauranga ; I went to Mr Corbett s shop to do some glazing on the 15th or Ifith May last ; I told Mr Corbett that I could not be responsible for breaking the glass, and Mr Corbett told me to do the best X could ; I took out the pane and embedded it again with putty ; the glass was too small ; on the Ist Juno Mr Corbett again called me in, and 1 found that the same square had given way j in endeavouring to rectify the same the pane cracked across ; the putty had run down ; I don’t think some of the squares would have stood macn weather when 1 Urst saw them ; they had ail given way from the sash ; I saw some 4 ‘ brads ” in the sash, and it

hi% * also been pieced ; I agreed not to charge for my expenses ns a if defendant settled tha athur our of Court. TBg| __ %Vi« By defendant: 1 doffTtT’’ ■■<*•. , tho ihcings in the window wo if. a ,ed with the setting of the glass unless actually touched the sash ; 1 did not, see the sash tho day after it was done ; 1 refused several times to touch the job ; 1 don't know whether Mr Corbett’s shutters were too heavy for the glass; the glass is very weak ; it is too big in comparison with tho thitkaes*.

Mrs Corbett, being sworn, stated that Mr laugh ton had called in to her simp and < fibred os the window iu question. O. H. Leighton, defendant, deposed : I had a contract for a sash from Mr Corbett ; he brought the glass down from Auckland ; It was not the sue ordered, and had to be cut; being ordered for me by Mr Corbett I had to pay for it, although it involved greater cost and risk ; after completing 1 called Mr Corbett’s attention to tho eash * he pointed out some putty not scraped off outside which 1 finished off; I hoard no more about tha affair then ; three or four days afterwards I called in for a settlement; I presented no account, aa we had agreed that I should be paid for sash and glass the same as tho other cost from Auckland ; Mr Corbel t paid me 10s 5 after six or seven day* plaintiff called upon me to re-glaze tho sash ; in consequence of tho fixing of the fittings in the window' one of the panes had been loosened ; I secured it ; ha again com plained afterwards, and I offered him 5s to have what ho liked dona to the window.

My plaintiffs I made out my own order for the glasa for Phillipps and Son, of Auckland j limy most have sent the wrong size ; y QU once gave no an opportunity of settling this* affair for lls 6d ; 1 told you if jou wore fool enough to pay another man to do the glazing it was your look out; Ido not consider I have been paid in full for the contract; I did not receive 8s for glazing. This concluded the esse. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £l as bd with costa (245). The Court then adjourned.