RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2287, 5 September 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day.

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) - Civil Cases. Guthrie and Asher v. D. Jackson.—A claim for 1.2 18s Id balance of account. The defendant admitted the correctness of the account rend'red for goods charged hut pleaded that credit had not been ;givon for the quantity of lirewood supplied which was Uncords at 35s a cord. Credit was only given for Ll6 12s 6d, instead of E2O 2s 6d. The plaintiffs said that credit had been given for a cord more than appeared on the books, as there was some dispute in consequence of the defendant having lost his receipts, and that the defendant had agreed to that arrangement, Judgment for the plaintiff, L2 IBs Id with costs.

Bell v, Collins,—l3s fld, balance of accqunt. Judgment by default for the plaintiff with, costs. Robert Dodd v. Smith.—Ll I 5s Id. Mr Bathgate for the defendant pleaded not indebted and a set-off. . The, contract and letter in acceptance were put in evidence for work done at Mr Reid’sJ house in' Heriot Bow, which not being stamped were objected to by the Court. Mr Bathgate'argued'that the contract not being for work amounting L2O stamps to the letters were not necessary. His Worship said as it, was a question of revenue the Clerk of the Court did his.duty in raising the objection: ! The’ 'case.'was allowed to 'proceed. The "difference between the plaintiff and defendant was that Work hj d been done in digging out a foundation which was not included in the contract. There Was other work done arid charged for which was not included in his specification of work io be done. Thoxnps Yates, .a,mason, was called, who stated that the defendant engaged the plaintiff andhimself expressly to excavate the ground, .expressly stating he might as well pay them as any one else to do the work. Mr Armstrong, who was called for the plaintiff, considered the excavation was not included in Dodds’s tender and setting a range was no part of the work agreed to be done. Robert Wade was called and stated that it would require days to make the alterations in the range ; he considered L2 17s 6d a fair charge. . For-, the defence it was urged that the setsoff Were for work which had to be done oyer again in consequence of defective workmanship, and which the plaintiff refused to alter though .ordered by the architect, Mr D. Ross. The defendant was charged L 6 8s 4d, for taking clown the imperfect work of the plaintiff and replacing it. ' Ll3 14s was admitted. D. Ross, architect, superintended the work at Mr Reid’s house, He condemned the work of the plaintiff as being very unsuitable ; that the flues would not work, that there was no excuse as the range was at the house, that the side plates were cut without permission and that ia consequence the range was spoiled, that the front of the chimney had to be taken down. A. Burt, p’umber, was employed by Mr Reid. He found fault with the boiler only, the bottom part of which was buried in ..brickwork, would not have heated, and had to be rebuilt. Charles Rcntori said he was employed by Mr Burt to make the alterations required. Judgment for plaintiff, LI Is 6d, each party pay ing half costs. • . J