RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2303, 23 September 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Howorth and Hodgkins v. Cargill and Thoncman Avas further post’oued. Evans v. Stratton. —LSO 3s 4d, for alleged damage to the plaintiff through an error in surveying sections 3 of 37, block 2, North Harbor and Bbteskin district. A]r SteAA'art for the plaintiff. In evidence, Mr Evans, the plaintiff, stated that he had engaged the services of the defendant to survey the land, for which he paid L 5 Uh. Defendant pegged out the lan 1, and acting upon the survey made, plaintiff erected a three-railed fence, dug a ditch round it, and cultivated the land. The land av.vs aftowards proved not to bo the property purchased by the plaintiff; the fence had to be removed, Avhich cost LIS ; ploughing, clearing, and laying down English grass had cost Lls ; and a stable which had been erected cost Ll2 10s. The re-survey had cost 1.5 10?, Application had been made to the defendant, who promised to pay L2O for the removal of the fence, and to refund the money paid for rc-surveying. ('orroborativc cAudcuce avns given. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff should be noufuited, on account of his title not being good. His Worship overruled the objection. The defendant then urged that he was not responsible for the survey, as the plaintiff had made the survey complained of himself. In reply to Mr Stewart, the defendant said he had offered to return the survey fee and the cost? of that portion for which he really was liable. His Worship assessed the damages at LJO. Judgment for the plaintiff, LJO, Avith costs. Sconlar a t . Harper. —1.20 8s 11 d, balance of account for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. W. Kennedy v. A. Deans.— L3l os for one quarter’s rent of land held under lea?o. Mr Barton for the plaintiff. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. W. S. Domdass, assignee in the estate of Marshall and Co. v. Thomas Burt —LfiO 11s 4d. Mr Howorth for the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he had offered to pay the amount due ; there Avas a set-off of Ll2 10s which Avas admitted. Judgment for plaintiff, L 44 13s fid Avith costs. A. Grieve a 7. Pritchard. —L 24 4s for balance of account. Air Stewart for the plaintiff, and Mr Harris for the defendant. Llfi 18a fid was pah], ipto Court and the defendant pleaded not indebted for tlje remainder. The plaintiff, a storekeeper said that tho defendant was a contractor, and had a road contract at Otakia in Avhich he had part Avith Air Jeffry Williams. Air Mackenzie was manager. He (plaintiff) entered into a voibal agreement to cart stone at 23s a day, and to spread metal. After the Avork was done jbho plaintiff applied for L 24 4s. On application to Pritchard the latter scut him to Mackenzie to get an order, Avbo sent him back to Pritchard to get it On re-applica-tion to Pritchard, tile latter repjl him a letter from Mackenzie drcctiug him (Pritchard) not to give any more orders without an order from him. They refined to pay him on the ground of overcharge. A Avitucss named Annan proved lie appiie.l ifor a contract for spreading stone, and was told he cppld pot have tho contract, because it was let to Grieve. He recciA 7 ed L 7 from Williams, which he had asked for in order to prevent Grieve setting the money off against stores supplied. Jeffery Williams said he agreed Avith the plaintiff to cart the metal at 22s per day. There Avas sonic dangerous work on a bill, for Avhich 23s a day was paid, because it was dangerous. No objection Avas made by the plaintiff, avlio bad admitted the correctness of the pay sheets, ou which that price Avas allowed. Alaekenzic, in Lis evidence, said he never made any agreement with Gricwe to spread the metal. Iheai - : rangomout was made with Annan. In crossexamination lie denied that be bad ever said to Annan be could not have a contract, as it was let to Grieve. The defendant said the plaintiff had frequently applied for money to him, and on one occasion he offered 5 per cent, as commission if he would agree to

obtain tho consent of Annan and party to the money being handed over to him. He succeeded in getting him L3O or L4O on those conditions, and received about Ils commission. In cross-examination by Mr Stewart, ttie defendant said, if Annan and the plaintiff said diffn’enty, they would state what was untrue. Annan was put into the box again, and said he never entered into a contract for spreading the metal. He had made an order on Mackenzie to stop the money of some other men as he was answerable for the stores. His Worship said the evidence of the rate per day was in favor of the defendant. With regard to metal spreading, the evidence was unsatisfactory. He thought the strong point was paying Annan L 7, and also having received an order from him to Grieve. He, therefore, appeared to be the contractor. Judgment for the plaintiff, Ll7 9s. Each party to pay half costs. (Left sitting.)