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

katane Magistrate’s Court before Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., last Tuesday. The parties were Messrs. Waugh and Walsh (Mr G. Otley) and Johannes Anderson (Mr B. S. Barry). The plaintiffs were a local firm of builders engaged by the defendant to do a certain amount of carpentering work on his bach at Lake Rotoma for which there was no price given. When finally the account was rendered covering 59 hours, defendant took strong exception to the bases of the payment per hour put in by both plaintiffs, which covered the whole of travelling time both ways as well as working time, all of which was charged on a common basis of 6/6. Evidence by plaintiffs showed that the hourly rate was their normal charge and that the job was done during weekends more or less to oblige defendant who was- keen to have it done. Defendant had paid what he considered a fair price based on 4/6 per hour, leaving a balance of £7 18s 6d still outstanding. For the defence it was claimed that with the carpenter’s award stipulating only 3/3 per hour the account was a gross overcharge. Defendant said that he had employed Mr Waugh previously when a reasonable charge had been made. The rate of 6/6 was beyond all reason and would not compare with what other carpenters were charging in Edgecumbe. He gave evidence as to details of the days worked mentioning a door and one side to a cupboard about 4 feet by 18 inches for which eight hours were entered. He had been amazed!

The Magistrate commented that he was prepared to. accept 4/6 as the usual rate. The law decreed that the charge must be reasonable and as this was higher than the award rate, he was prepared to consider it reasonable. On the question of hours he did not think defendant had any

right to interfere. He would direct that a reduction of 2/- per hour be made making a total judgment for the difference of £2 Os 6d. Costs were also allowed against plaintiff to the extent of £4 8s 6d.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BPB19460802.2.23

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 6, 2 August 1946, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
351

Untitled Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 6, 2 August 1946, Page 5

Untitled Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 6, 2 August 1946, Page 5

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