RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2293, 12 September 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R. M.) Cxva. Cases. Mcrrie v. Farrow.—L2 10s. Judgment for plaintiff by default for the amount. Black and Thomson v. W. Hensley, -L3 Is 7d for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff. Dempster and Macpherson v. Roche and Martin. —LIO 16s. Mr Stewart for the plaintiffs ; Mr J. Smith for the defendants. 18s was paid into court. The plaintiffs stated that understanding that the defendants wanted men to do certain work at buildings in the Octagon, they went down and ascertained what was necessary to be done from a specification written in pencil. He and bis partner offered to do the work required for L 32 14s There was not a written contract formally entered into, but one of Ibe defendants ordered them to go on. After having nearly finished the work, during the progress of which they had been absent two days, on going down one day, the plaintiff Dempster fonn I a person working at his bench, and he was not permitted to go on afterwards. About 13 18s would have been the cost of finishing the work. Mr Stewart contended that the plaintiffs under the circumstances were entuled to recover the full amount claimed. In cross-examina-tion the plaintiff Dempster said he wished to he allowed to take home some wood to make brackets but was not allowed. For the defence it was contended that the plaintiffs ceased to work for a certain time, in consequence of which the defendants gave notice that if they dd not immediately resume it would be finished at their expense. They did not resume work, and the defendants employed other men to do it. The cost of completing the work was L 8 odd, and there was still work to be done that won d cost T.l 16s, which would bring the total cost of the contract to about L2 more than agreed upon. The defendant Roche in reply to what Dempster stated about the brackets, said that he refused to allow the brackets to be taken off the premises to make, as he wanted to see the work going on on the premises. J!o permitted the man to do so who was engaged to do Dempster’s work, as he did not absent himself. Evidence was given on b ith sides by a great number of witnesses. Judgment for plaintiffs, Ln 8s 2d. There were a few other cases of no importance.