SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2141, 17 March 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. This Dav. (Before Mr Justice Ward and a Special Jury.) MACKKNZIK V. t'ALDKR, The trial of this case was continued. Mr Macassey addressed the jury for the defence. He urged that it was a case requiring strict scrutiny, on several grounds. The claim was not made for several years after the work was done. The plaintiff appeared to have been under the impression that only L*2oo or L3OO was due, whereas now he claimed LOGO, and the claim was not prepared until Mr Balfour and other important witnesses had left the Province. Prom circumstances which appeared in evidence, it was plain that the account given by Mr MTudoe was true. If the contract was sublet, and it was absurd to suppose that the defendant should be expected not only to sublet the contract, but to provide funds for carrying it out. Now Calder, sen., who went to

Oamaru, continued superintending labor, and was paid LBO. It was, therefore, inconceivable that he should have had a share in the contract and receive wages of labor. From the fact of the defendant finding material, powder, &c., and dismissing men, it was incredible that the plaintiff should consider himself at the time other than an inspector of works. From all that appeared in evidence it was impossible to avoid the conclusion that the plaintiff never became a contractor. Further, on any consideration the plaintiff considered as superintendent of labor had been abundantly paid having received LI 350. He kept accurate books and furnished accurate returns. But under any circumstances he had been paid. Altogether he had received LI 70S 9s 4d. When ho left Oamaru those works were not completed, and he left in a summary way. The whole of the items were reviewed and commented upon by the learned counsel. The sixth item of LOSS was the key to the whole. Had not Mr MTndoe discovered that that sum was pa ; d to defendant, they would never have heard of the claim. That L6BB 10s was given to him as consideration for losses through incomplete plans and specifications and had no reference to work and materials provided by plaintiff. The case Plight safely be left to rest on that demand. Mr Macassey contended that the plaintiff abandoned the position originally intended. From first to last the defendant had been the paymaster, and was looked upon by every one as the principal throughout the whole of the transactions at Oamaru. [Mot concluded when our reporter left.]