DISTRICT COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3187, 15 September 1881, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 15. (Before'Eiß Honor Judge Kenny.) BANKBUPTCY. Mr Lee applied for the discharge of Edmond Bourgeois, a bankrupt. Order for discharge, with the usual order for costs. The case of Creamer and Gribble, bankrupts, was, on the application of Mr Lee, adjourned until next Court day. civil Gases. Turley v. the laradale River Conservators.—Hia Honor, in giving judgment, said that it appeared from the evidence that this plan was ordered by Mr McDonald, a member of the River Board : he had no authority to order this work to be done, but the plan was supplied to the Board, and it was made use of at several meetings of the Board. So much for the facts of the case. His Honor held that, where an unauthorised agent had entered into a contract, the principal might ratify the contract, and 80 become liable. In this case the Board had tacitly ratified the action of Mr McDonald by making use of the plan : they had adopted and make use of the contract made hy Mr McDonald. If on seeing the plan the Board had returned it to Mr Turley, with an intimation that they b«d never ordered it, the case would have been different. Judgment would be entered up for plaintiff for the full amount, £30, with costs, counsel's fee, and witness's expenses. Lascelles v. Palmer.—This claim had been referred to the Registrar of tbe Supreme Court for taxation, and judgment was now entered up for plaintiff for £39 9s 4d, with coats. Mr Sainsbury pointed out that, although the claim had been reduced £10 on taxation, the charges struck out had not been made in Napier but in Wellington. Kinross v. Smith and Walker.—Mr McLean, who appeared for plaintiff, said there had been a difficulty in serving the defendants, who resided on the other coast. Ho asked for au adjournment until the 20th October. Adjournment granted* . Kinross v. Walker, Mornn, and Russell. —Mr McLean said this case was in the same condition as the previous one, and was granted an adjournment until the 20th October. Atherton v. Davies.—Claim £91 for work done; Mr Lee appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lascelles for the defendant.—James Atherton, examined by Mr Lee: Had been a surveyor for over eleven years. Knew the defendant. Had done some work for him, which was the subject of this claim. On the 26th of August he took out quantities for the reclamation works, the sea wall 1760 feet

long, a mile of railway, and earthwork. It took him five days. The amount of the tender was tbout .£24 000. Ten gu ncas >vas a tv.euty-fourth per cent on the tender. He would be entitled to charge one per cent, by the rules of his profession. He received £4 on September 4tb. The balance of £6 10g was still %■ due to him. On October the 19th he fl checked quantities for the Ncri Pivraonth harbor vvorkc. Mr Davies asked him to* doit. He checked the quantities of earthwork from the plaos. Hig charge amounted to a twelveth per per cent on Mr Davies' tender. Two guineas was a resonable charge. He was employed by Mr Davies to measure up the amount of earthwork at the end oi Munroe street on the Ist November. There were several men helping him. He gave Mr Davits the quantities. There were 466 cubic yards. It did not take him a full day. He always charged a full day for a broken day. He took out the quantities during the day. He charged three guineas fora bill of quantities forsewerage works. He had been paid the same Hinount by Mr Davies before. £5 was paid to him, but it was a general account, and did not include the two guineas and three guineas. On November 13th Mr Davies was going to Gisborne, and got him to take charge of the sewerage works. He superintended the construction of them for three weeks. He gave orders to the men. Mr Davies engaged him to take charge. Mr Davies had the contract. Mr Davies returned on the 20th of November. Witness still continued his superintendance. One guinea per day was a fair charge; it was a small contract, less than £1000. He received £6 from Mr Davies on the 22nd November. He continued at the contract until December 2nd. The £6 was a payment on account. He charged three guineas for quantities for Redclyffe bridge on the 22nd November. Three guineas was a fair charge. On | December 4th he received £10—that was the day he finished on the sewerage works. He left for Gisborne on the same day. He went to survey the harbor at Gisborne at defendants' request. No terms were mentioned. Mr Davis said he would pay his expenses up theret There was a rule in the profession that expenses are always paid on work away from home. He made the four plans produced, one was a plan of the breakwater, one of the jetty, one of different sections of the breakwater, and one a rough sketch of the harbor. The » I ings are shown on the plan. He took ""*'■ about 120 soundings. There were two other plans not produced. Hβ took the soundings at different hours, early in the mornings, and late at night. Three guineas per day is one-eixth per cent, on defendants , estimate of the cost. It was a fair charge. Sir John Coode charged one per cent, on the estimated cost of the proposed harbour works in New Zealand. He only made the small charge because defendant promised him an appointment on the harbour works. He had men helping him. Mr Davies paid them. Defendant paid his fare from Napier to Gisborne. Defendant did not pay his fare back from Gisborne. He did not receive £1 on December 20th. On January 3rd he received £2 for quantities of sewerage works. That was not in full payment; it was general payment.—Cross examined by Mr Lascelles: Serving three years in D. A. McLeod's office constituted him a civil engineer. Up to taking this action he had made a verbal demand for the items previous to his going to Gisborne. He had never rendered an account. He first made a formal demaud for the work done at Gisborne by telegram to Mr Davies on the 20th of May, 1881. That wasreferring to the breakwater only. He had asked for a settlement several times, always verbally. He mentioned the items in one letter. He sent a telegram to defendant stating that his charge at Gieborne would be three guineas per day. That telegram spoilt everything. He was very much in want of money in March, April, and May of this year. During that time in Napier his average earnings were 5s per week. After his telegram to Mr Davis he had no written communication from him—A number of letters written by plaintiff to defendant were read and put in—By the Court: He disliked sending accounts to defendant, lest he might be offended. That was the reason he did not allude to the former items. ■> He did not want a final settlement, only something on account. — Examination continued : The charge of £81 was for day work, and not a charge per cent on the estimate. Three guineas per day was a very low charge.—The case was proceeding when our reporter left.